Sermons and Discourses Volume 3, Discourse 8
A DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSƲBSTANTIATION.
Concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, one of the two great poſitive Inſtitutions of the Chriſtian Religion, there are two main Points of difference between Ʋs and the Church of Rome. One, about the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation; in which they think, but are not certain, that they have the Scripture and the words of our Saviour on their ſide: The other, about the adminiſtration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds? in which we are ſure that we have the Scripture and our Saviour's Inſtitution on our ſide; and that ſo plainly that our Adverſaries themſelves do not deny it.
Of the firſt of theſe I ſhall now treat, and endeavour to ſhew againſt the Church of Rome, That in this Sacrament, there is no ſubſtantial change made of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Bloud of Chriſt; that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, and ſuffered upon the Croſs; for ſo they explain that hard word Tranſubſtantiation.
Before I engage in this Argument, I cannot but obſerve what an unreaſonable task we are put upon, by the bold confidence of our Adverſaries, to diſpute a matter of Senſe; which is one of thoſe things about which Ariſtotle hath long ſince pronounc'd there ought to be no diſpute.
It might well ſeem ſtrange if any man ſhould write a Book, to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant, and that a Muſket-bullet is not a Pike: It is every whit as hard a caſe, to put to maintain by a long Diſcourſe, that what we ſee and handle and taſte to be Bread is Bread, and not the Body of a man; and what we ſee and taſte to be Wine is Wine, and not Bloud: And if this evidence may not paſs for ſufficient without any farther proof, I do not ſee why any man, that hath confidence enough to do ſo, may not deny any thing to be what all the World ſees it is; or affirm any thing to be what all the World ſees it is not; and this without all poſſibility of being farther confuted. So that the buſineſs of Tranſubſtantiation is not a controverſie of Scripture againſt Scripture, or of Reaſon againſt Reaſon, but of downright Impudence againſt the plain meaning of Scripture, and all the Senſe and Reaſon of Mankind.
It is a moſt Self-evident Falſhood; and there is no Doctrine or Propoſition in the World that is of it ſelf more evidently true, than Tranſubſtantiation is evidently falſe: And yet if it were poſſible to be true, it would be the moſt ill-natur'd and pernicious truth in the World, becauſe it would ſuffer nothing elſe to be true; it is like the Roman-Catholick Church, which will needs be the whole Chriſtian Church, and will allow no other Society of Chriſtians to be any part of it: So Tranſubſtantiation, if it be true at all, it is all truth, and nothing elſe is true; for it cannot be true unleſs our Senſes, and the Senſes of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects; and if this he true and certain, then nothing elſe can be ſo; for if we be not certain of what we ſee, we can be certain of nothing.
And yet notwithſtanding all this, there are a Company of men in the World ſo abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of deluſion as in good earneſt to believe this groſs and palpable Errour, and to impoſe the belief of it upon the Chriſtian World under no leſs penalties than of temporal death and eternal damnation. And therefore to undeceive, if poſſible, theſe deluded Souls, it will be neceſſary to examine the pretended grounds of ſo falſe a Doctrine, and to lay open the monſtrous abſurdity of it.
And in the handling of this Argument, I ſhall proceed in this plain method.
I. I ſhall conſider the pretended grounds and reaſons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine.
II. I ſhall produce our Objections againſt it. And if I can ſhew that there is no tolerable ground for it, and that there are invincible Objections againſt it, then every man is not onelyonly in reaſon excuſed from believing this Doctrine, but hath great cauſe to believe the contrary.
FIRST, I will conſider the pretended grounds and reaſons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine. Which muſt be one or more of theſe five. Either 1ſt. The Authority of Scripture. Or 2ly. The perpetual belief of this Doctrine in the Chriſtian Church, as an evidence that they always underſtood and interpreted our Saviour's words, This is my body, in this ſenſe. Or 3ly. The Authority of the preſent Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith. Or 4ly. The abſolute neceſſity of ſuch a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of thoſe who receive this Sacrament. Or 5ly. To magnifie the power of the Prieſt in being able to work ſo great a Miracle.
1ſt. They pretend for this Doctrine the Authority of Scripture in thoſe words of our Saviour, This is my body. Now to ſhew the inſufficiency of this pretence, I ſhall endeavour to make good theſe two things.
1. That there is no neceſſity of underſtanding thoſe words of our Saviour in the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation.
2. That, there is a great deal of reaſon, nay that it is very abſurd and unreaſonable, to underſtand them otherwiſe.
Firſt, That there is no neceſſity to underſtand thoſe words of our Saviour in the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation. If there be any, it muſt be from one of theſe two reaſons. Either becauſe there are no figurative expreſſions in Scripture, which I think no man ever yet ſaid: or elſe, becauſe a Sacrament admits of no figures; which would be very abſurd for any man to ſay, ſince it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to repreſent and exhibit ſome inviſible grace and benefit by an outward ſign and figure: And eſpecially ſince it cannot be denied, but that in the inſtitution of this very Sacrament our Saviour uſeth figurative expreſſions, and ſeveral words which cannot be taken ſtrictly and literally. When he gave the Cup he ſaid, This Cup is the new Teſtament in my bloud, which is ſhed for you and for many for the remiſſion of Sins. Where firſt, the Cup is put for the Wine contained in the Cup; or elſe if the words be literally taken, ſo as to ſignifie a ſubſtantial change, it is not of the Wine, but of the Cup; and that, not into the bloud of Chriſt but into the new Teſtament or new Covenant in his bloud. Beſides, that his bloud is ſaid then to be ſhied, and his body to be broken, which was not till his Paſſion, which followed the inſtitution and firſt celebration of this Sacrament.
But that there is no neceſſity to underſtand our Saviour's words in the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation, I will take the plain conceſſion of a great number of the moſt learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controverſie.(a)de Euch. l. 3. c. 23. Bellarmine, (b)in 3. diſ. 49. Qu. 75. Sect. 2.Suarez and(c)in 3. part diſp. 180. Qu. 75. art. 2. c.15. Vaſquez do acknowledge Scotus the great Schoolman to have ſaid that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture: And Bellarmine grants this not to be improbable; and Suarez and Vaſquez acknowledge(d)in Sent. l. 4. diſt. 11. Qu. 1. n. 15. Durandus to have ſaid as much.(e)in 4. Sent. Q 5. & Quodl. 4. Q. 3. Ocham, another famous Schoolman, ſays expreſly, that the Doctrine which holds the ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine to remain after conſecration is neither repugnant to Reaſon nor to Scripture. (f)in 4. Sent. Q. 6. art. 2.Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray ſays plainly, that the Doctrine of the Subſtance of Bread and Wine remaining after Conſecration is more eaſie and free from abſurdity, more rational, and no ways repugnant to the authority of Scripture; nay more, that for the other Doctrine, viz. of Tranſubſtantiation, there is no evidence in Scripture. (g)in canon. Miſſ. Lect. 40.Gabriel Biel, another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church, freely declares, that as to any thing expreſs'd in the Canon of the Scriptures, a wan may believe that the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Conſecration: and therefore he reſolves the belief of Tranſubſtantiation into ſome other Revelation, beſides Scripture, which he ſuppoſeth the Church had about it. Cardinal(h)in Aquin. 3. part. Qu. 75. art. 1. Cajetan confeſſeth that the Goſpel doth no where expreſs that the Bread is changed into the Body of Chriſt; that we have this from the authority of the Church: nay, he goes farther, that there is nothing in the Goſpel which enforceth any man to underſtand theſe words of Chriſt, this is my body, in a proper and not in a metaphorical ſenſe; but the Church having underſtood them in a proper ſenſe they are to be ſo explained; Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope(i)Aegid. Conink de Sacram Q. 75. art. 1. n. 13. Pius V. Cardinal(k)de Sacram. l. 2. c. 3. Contarenus, and(l)Loc. Theolog. l. 3. c. 3. Melchior Canus one of the beſt and moſt judicious Writers that Church ever had, reckon this Doctrine among thoſe which are not ſo expreſly found in Scripture. I will add but one more, of great authority in the Church, and a reputed Martyr,(m)contra captiv. Babylon. c. 10. n. 2. Fiſher Biſhop of Rocheſter who ingenuouſly confeſſeth that in the words of the Inſtitution there is not one word from whence the true preſence of the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt in our Maſs can be proved: So that we need not much contend that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scripture, when this is ſo fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adverſaries themſelves.
Secondly, If there be no neceſſity of underſtanding our Saviour's words in the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation, I am ſure there is a great deal of reaſon to underſtand them otherwiſe. Whether we conſider the like expreſſions in Scripture; as where our Saviour ſays he is the door, and the true Vine (which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumph'd in, had it been ſaid, this is my true body.) And ſo likewiſe where the Church is ſaid to be Chriſt's body; and the Rock which followed the Iſraelites to be Chriſt, 1 Cor. 10.4. They drank of that Rock which followed them, and that rock was Chriſt: All which and innumerable more like expreſſions in Scripture every man underſtands in a figurative, and not in a ſtrictly literal and abſurd ſenſe. And it is very well known, that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly ſaid to be that which they do ſignifie and repreſent; and there is not in that Language a more proper and uſual way of expreſſing a thing to ſignifie ſo and ſo, than to ſay that it is ſo and ſo. Thus Joſeph expounding Pharaoh's dream to him, Gen. 41.26. Says, the ſeven good kine are ſeven years, and the ſeven good ears of corn are ſeven years, that is, they ſignified or repreſented ſeven years of plenty; and ſo Pharaoh underſtood him, and ſo would any man of ſenſe underſtand the like expreſſions; nor do I believe that any ſenſible man, who had never heard of Tranſubſtantiation being grounded upon theſe words of our Saviour, this is my body, would upon reading the inſtitution of the Sacrament in the Goſpel ever have imagin'd any ſuch thing to be meant by our Saviour in thoſe words; but would have underſtood his meaning to have been this Bread ſignifies my Body, this Cup ſignifies my Bloud; and this which you ſee me now do, do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me: But ſurely it would never have enter'd into any man's mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himſelf in his hand, and give away himſelf from himſelf with his own hands.
Or whether we compare theſe words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Paſſover uſed by the Jews from Ezra's time, as(n)Dialog. cum Tryp. p. 297. Edit. Pariſ. 1639. Juſtin Martyr tells us, foreign, this Paſſover is our Saviour and our refuge: not that they believed the Paſchal Lamb to be ſubſtantially changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt, or into the Meſſias the Saviour whom they expected and who was ſignified by it: But this Lamb which they did eat did repreſent to them and put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt, when by the ſlaying of a Lamb and ſprinkling the bloud of it upon their doors their firſtborn were paſſed over and ſpared; and did likewiſe foreſhew the Salvation of the Meſſias, the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the world.
And nothing is more common in all Languages than to give the name of the thing ſignified to the Sign. As the delivery of a Deed or Writing under hand and Seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of ſuch an Eſtate, and it is really ſo; not the delivery of mere wax and parchment, but the conveyance of a real Eſtate; as truly and really to all effects and purpoſes of Law, as if the very material houſes and lands themſelves could be and were actually delivered into my hands: In like manner the names of the things themſelves made over to us in the new Covenant of the Goſpel between God and man, are given to the Signs or Seals of that Covenant. By Baptiſm Chriſtians are ſaid to be made partakers of the Holy Ghoſt, Heb. 6.4. And by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we are ſaid to communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Chriſt which was broken, and of his Bloud which was ſhed for us, that is, of the real benefits of his death and paſſion. And thus St. Paul ſpeaks of this Sacrament, 1 Cor. 10.16. The cup of bleſſing which we bleſs, is it not the communion of the bloud of Chriſt? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? But ſtill it is bread, and he ſtill calls it ſo, v. 17. For we being many are one bread and one body; for we are partakers of that one bread. The Church of Rome might, if they pleaſed, as well argue from hence that all Chriſtians are ſubſtantially changed firſt into Bread, and then into the natural Body of Chriſt by their participation of the Sacrament, becauſe they are ſaid thereby to be one bread and one body. And the ſame Apoſtle in the next Chapter, after he had ſpoken of the conſecration of the Elements ſtill calls them the Bread and the Cup, in three verſes together, As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, v. 26. Whoſoever ſhall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, v. 27. But let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of this bread and drink of that cup, v. 28. And our Saviour himſelf when he had ſaid, this is my bloud of the new Teſtament, immediately adds,*Matth. 26.29. but I ſay unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the Vine, untill I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom, that is, not till after his reſurrection, which was the firſt ſtep of his exaltation into the Kingdom given him by his Father, when the Scripture tells us he did eat and drink with his Diſciples. But that which I obſerve from our Saviour's words, is, that after the conſecration of the Cup and the delivering of it to his Diſciples to drink of it, he tells them that he would thenceforth drink no more of that fruit of the Vine, which he had now drank with them, till after his Reſurrection. From whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the Vine, real wine, which our Saviour drank of and communicated to his Diſciples in the Sacrament.
Beſides, if we conſider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Paſſion, it is impoſſible theſe words ſhould be underſtood literally of the natural body and bloud of Chriſt; becauſe it was his body broken and his bloud ſhed which he gave to his Diſciples, which if we underſtand literally of his natural body broken and his bloud ſhed, then theſe words, this is my body which is broken, and this is my bloud which is ſhed, could not be true, becauſe his Body was then whole and unbroken, and his bloud not then ſhed; nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice (as they affirm this Sacrament to be) unleſs they will ſay that propitiation was made before Chriſt ſuffer'd: And it is likewiſe impoſſible that the Diſciples ſhould underſtand theſe words literally, becauſe they not onelyonly plainly ſaw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine, but they ſaw likewiſe as plainly that it was not his Body which was given, but his Body which gave that which was given; not his body broken and his bloud ſhed, becauſe they ſaw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierc'd; and therefore they could not underſtand theſe words literally: If they did, can we imagine that the Diſciples, who upon all other occaſions were ſo full of queſtions and objections, ſhould make no difficulty of this matter? nor ſo much as ask our Saviour, how can theſe things be? that they ſhould not tell him, we ſee this to be Bread and that to be Wine, and we ſee thy Body to be diſtinct from both; we ſee thy Body not broken, and thy Bloud not ſhed.
From all which it muſt needs be very evident, to any man that will impartially conſider things, how little reaſon there is to underſtand thoſe words of our Saviour, this is my body, and this is my bloud, in the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation; nay on the contrary, that there is very great reaſon and an evident neceſſity to underſtand them otherwiſe. I proceed to ſhew,
2ly. That this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual belief of the Chriſtian Church, which the Church of Rome vainly pretends as an evidence that the Church did always underſtand and interpret our Saviour's words in this ſenſe.
To manifeſt the groundleſneſs of this pretence, I ſhall, 1. ſhew by plain teſtimony of the Fathers in ſeveral Ages, that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Chriſtian Church. 2. I ſhall ſhew the time and occaſion of its coming in, and by what degrees it grew up and was eſtabliſh'd in the Roman Church. 3. I ſhall anſwer their great pretended Demonſtration that this always was and muſt have been the conſtant belief of the Chriſtian Church.
1. I ſhall ſhew by plain Teſtimonies of the Fathers in ſeveral Ages, for above five hundred years after Chriſt, that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Chriſtian Church. I deny not but that the Fathers do, and that with great reaſon, very much magnifie the wonderfull myſtery and efficacy of this Sacrament, and frequently ſpeak of a great Supernatural change made by the divine benediction; which we alſo readily acknowledge. They ſay indeed, that the Elements of Bread and Wine do by the divine bleſſing become to us the Body and Bloud of Chriſt: But they likewiſe ſay that the names of the things ſignified are given to the Signs; that the Bread and Wine do ſtill remain in their proper nature and ſubſtance, and that they are turn'd into the ſubſtance of our Bodies; that the Body of Chriſt in the Sacrament is not his natural Body, but the ſign and figure of it; not that Body which was crucified, nor that Bloud which was ſhed upon the Croſs; and that it is impious to underſtand the eating of the fleſh of the Son of man and drinking his bloud literally: all which are directly oppoſite to the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation and utterly inconſiſtent with it. I will ſelect but ſome ſew Teſtimonies of many which I might bring to this purpoſe.
I begin with Juſtin Martyr, who ſays expreſly, that*Apol. 2 p. 98 Edit. Pariſ. 1636. our Bloud and Fleſh are nouriſhed by the converſion of that food which we receive in the Euchariſt: But that cannot be the natural body and bloud of Chriſt, for no man will ſay that that is converted into the nouriſhment of our bodies.
The Second is*Lib. 4. c. 34. Irenaeus, who ſpeaking of this Sacrament ſays, that the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common bread, but the Euchariſt (or Sacrament) conſiſting of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly. He ſays it is no longer common bread, but after invocation or conſecration it becomes the Sacrament, that is, bread ſanctified, conſiſting of two things an earthly and a heavenly; the earthly thing is bread, and the heavenly is the divine bleſſing which by the invocation or conſecration is added to it. And*Lib. 5. c. 2. elſewhere he hath this paſſage, when therefore the cup that is mix'd (that is, of Wine and Water) and the bread that is broken receives the word of God, it becomes the Euchariſt of the bloud and body of Chriſt, of which the ſubſtance of our fleſh is encreaſed and conſiſts: but if that which we receive in the Sacrament do nouriſh our bodies, it muſt be bread and wine, and not the natural body and bloud of Chriſt. There is another remarkable Teſtimony of Irenaeus, which though it be not now extant in thoſe works of his which remain, yet hath been preſerv'd by*Comment. in 1 Pet. c. 3. Oecumenius, and it is this; when (ſays he) the Greeks had taken ſome Servants, of the Chriſtian Catechumeni (that is, ſuch as had not been admitted to the Sacrament) and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them ſome of the ſecrets of the Chriſtians, theſe Servants having nothing to ſay that might gratiſy thoſe who offered violence to them, except onelyonly that they had heard from their Maſters that the divine Communion was the bloud and body of Chriſt, they thinking that it was really bloud and fleſh, declar'd as much to thoſe that queſtioned them. The Greeks taking this as if it were really done by the Chriſtians, diſcovered it to others of the Greeks; who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confeſs it. To whom Blandina boldly anſwered, How would they endure to do this, who by way of exerciſe (or abſtinence) do not eat that fleſh which may lawfully he eaten? By which it appears that this which they would have charg'd upon Chriſtians, as if they had literally eaten the fleſh and bloud of Chriſt in the Sacrament, was a falſe accuſation which theſe Martyrs denied, ſaying they were ſo far from that that they for their part did not eat any fleſh at all.
The next is Tertullian, who proves againſt Marcion the Heretique that the Body of our Saviour was not a mere phantaſm and appearance, but a real Body, becauſe the Sacrament is a figure and image of his Body; and if there be an image of his body he muſt have a real body, otherwiſe the Sacrament would be an image of an image. His words are theſe,*Adverſs Marcionem. l. 4. p. 571. Edit. Rigal…. Paris. 1634. the bread which our Saviour took and diſtributed to his Diſciples he made his own body, ſaying this is my body, that is, the image or figure of my body. But it could not have been the figure of his body, if there had not been a true and real body. And arguing againſt the Scepticks who denied the certainty of ſenſe he uſeth this Argument: That if we queſtion our ſenſes we may doubt whether our Bleſſed Saviour were not deceived in what he heard, and ſaw, and touched.*Lib. de Anima, p. 319. He might (ſays he) be deceived in the voice from heaven in the ſmell of the ointment with which he was anointed againſt his burial, and in the taſte of the wine which he conſecrated in remembrance of his bloud. So that it ſeems we are to truſt our ſenſes, even in the matter of the Sacrament: and if that be true, the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation is certainly falſe.
Origen in his*Edit. Huetii. Comment on Matth. 15. ſpeaking of the Sacrament hath this paſſage, That food which is ſanctified by the word of God and prayer, as to that of it which is material, goeth into the belly and is caſt out into the draught, which none ſurely will ſay of the Body of Chriſt. And afterwards he adds by way of explication, it is not the matter of the bread, but the word which is ſpoken over it, which profiteth him that worthily eateth the Lord; and this (he ſays) he had ſpoken concerning the typical and Symbolical body. So that the matter of bread remaineth in the Sacrament, and this Origen calls the typical and Symbolical body of Chriſt; and it is not the natural body of Chriſt which is there eaten, for the food eaten in the Sacrament, as to that of it which is material, goeth into the belly and is caſt out into the draught. This Teſtimony is ſo very plain in the Cauſe that Sextus Senenſis ſuſpects this place of Origen was depraved by the Heretiques. Cardinal Perron is contented to allow it to be Origen's, but rejects his teſtimony becauſe he was accuſed of Hereſie by ſome of the Fathers, and ſays he talks like a Heretique in this place. So that with much ado this teſtimony is yielded to us. The ſame Father in his*Cap. 10. Homilies upon Leviticus ſpeaks thus, There is alſo in the New Teſtament a letter which kills him who doth not Spiritually underſtand thoſe things which are ſaid; for if we take according to the Letter that which is ſaid, EXCEPT YE EAT MY FLESH AND DRINK MY BLOƲD, this Letter kills. And this alſo is a killing Teſtimony, and not to be anſwered but in Cardinal Perron's way, by ſaying he talks like a Heretique.
St. Cyprian hath a whole Epiſtle*Ep. 63. to Cecilius, againſt thoſe who gave the Communion in Water only without Wine mingled with it; and his main argument againſt them is this, that the bloud of Chriſt with which we are redeemed and quickned cannot ſeem to be in the Cup when there is no Wine in the Cup by which the Bloud of Chriſt is repreſented: and afterwards he ſays, that contrary to the Evangelical and Apoſtolical Doctrine water was in ſome places offer'd (or given) in the Lord's Cup, which (ſays he) alone cannot expreſs (or repreſent) the bloud of Chriſt. And laſtly he tells us, that by water the people is underſtood, by Wine the bloud of Chriſt is ſhewn (or repreſented) but when in the Cup water is mingled with Wine the people is united to Chriſt. So that according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental Cup is no otherwiſe chang'd into the Bloud of Chriſt than the Water mixed with it is changed into the People, which are ſaid to be united to Chriſt.
I omit many others, and paſs to St. Auſtin in the fourth Age af…er Chriſt. And I the rather inſiſt upon his Teſtimony, becauſe of his eminent eſteem and authority in the Latin Church; and he alſo calls the Elements of the Sacrament the figure and ſign of Chriſt's body and bloud. In his Book againſt Adimantus the Manichee we have this expreſſion,*Aug. Tom. 6. p. 187. Edit. Baſil. 1569. our Lord did not doubt to ſay, this is my Body, when he gave the Sign of his Body. And in his explication of the third Pſalm, ſpeaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his laſt Supper, in which (ſays he)†Enarrat. in Pſal. Tom. 8. p. 16. he commended and delivered to his Diſciples the figure of his Body; Language which would now be cenſur'd for Hereſie in the Church of Rome. Indeed he was never accus'd of Hereſie, as Cardinal Perron ſays Origen was, but he talks as like one as Origen himſelf. And in his Comment on the 98 Pſalm ſpeaking of the offence which the Diſciples took at that ſaying of our Saviour, except ye eat the fleſh of the Son of man and drink his bloud, &c. he brings in our Saviour ſpeaking thus to them,‖Id. Tom. 9. p. 1105. ye muſt underſtand Spiritually, what I have ſaid unto you; ye are not to eat this body which ye ſee, and to drink that bloud which ſhall be ſhed by thoſe that ſhall crucifie me. I have commended a certain Sacrament to you, which being Spiritually underſtood will give you life. What more oppoſite to the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, than that the Diſciples were not to eat that Body of Chriſt which they ſaw, nor to drink that bloud which was ſhed upon the Croſs, but that all this was to be underſtood ſpiritually and according to the nature of a Sacrament? For that body he tells us is not here but in heaven, in his Comment upon theſe words, me ye have not always. *Id Tract. 50. in Johan.He ſpeaks (ſays he) of the preſence of his body: ye ſhall have me according to my providence, according to Majeſty and inviſible grace: but according to the fleſh which the word aſſumed, according to that which was born of the Virgin Mary, ye ſhall not have me: therefore becauſe he converſed with his Diſciples forty days, he is aſcended up into heaven, and is not here.
In his 23d. Epiſtle;†Id Tom. 2. p. 93. if the Sacrament (ſays he) had not ſome reſemblance of thoſe things whereof they are Sacraments, they would not be Sacraments at all: but from this reſemblance they take for the moſt part the names of the things which they repreſent. Therefore as the Sacrament of the body of Chriſt is in ſome manner or ſenſe Chriſt's body, and the Sacrament of his bloud is the bloud of Chriſt; So the Sacrament of faith (meaning Baptiſm) is faith. Upon which words of St. Auſtin there is this remarkable Gloſs in their own Canon Law; ‖De Conſecr. diſt. 2. Hoc. eſt.the heavenly Sacrament which truly repreſents the fleſh of Chriſt is called the body of Chriſt; but improperly: whence it is ſaid, that after a manner, but not according to the truth of the thing but the Myſtery of the thing ſignified; So that the meaning is, it is called the body of Chriſt, that is, it ſignifies the body of Chriſt: And if this be St. Auſtin's meaning, I am ſure no Proteſtant can ſpeak more plainly againſt Tranſubſtantiation. And in the ancient Canon of the Maſs, before it was chang'd in complyance with this new Doctrine, it is expreſly call'd a Sacrament, a Sign, an Image and a Figure of Chriſt's body. To which I will add that remarkable paſſage of St. Auſtin cited by*De conſecrat. diſt. 2. Sect. Ʋtrum. Gratian, that as we receive the ſimilitude of his death in Baptiſm, ſo we may alſo receive the likeneſs of his fleſh and bloud; that ſo neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament, nor Pagans have occaſion to make us ridiculous for drinking the bloud of one that was ſlain.
I will mention but one Teſtimony more of this Father, but ſo clear a one as it is impoſſible any man in his wits that had believed Tranſubſtantiation could have utter'd. It is in his Treatiſe *Lib. 3. Tom. 3. p. 53.de Doctrina Chriſtiana; where laying down ſeveral Rules for the right underſtanding of Scripture, he gives this for one. If (ſays he) the ſpeech be a precept forbidding ſome heinous wickedneſs or crime, or commanding us to do good, it is not figurative; but if it ſeem to command any heinous wickedneſs or crime, or to forbid that which is profitable and beneficial to others, it is figurative. For example, Except ye eat the fleſh of the Son of man and drink his bloud, ye have no life in you: This ſeems to command a heinous wickedneſs and crime, therefore it is a figure; commanding us to communicate of the paſſion of our Lord, and with delight and advantage to lay up in our memory that his fleſh was crucified and wounded for us. So that, according to St. Auſtin's beſt skill in interpreting Scripture, the literal eating of the fleſh of Chriſt and drinking his bloud would have been a great impiety; and therefore the expreſſion is to be underſtood figuratively: not as Cardinal Perron would have it, onelyonly in oppoſition to the eating of his fleſh and bloud in the groſs appearance of fleſh and bloud, but to the real eating of his natural body and bloud under any appearance whatſoever: For St. Auſtin doth not ſay, this is a Figurative ſpeech wherein we are commanded really to feed upon the natural body and bloud of Chriſt under the ſpecies of bread and wine, as the Cardinal would underſtand him; for then the ſpeech would be literal and not figurative: But he ſays, this is a figurative ſpeech wherein we are commanded Spiritually to feed upon the remembrance of his Paſſion.
To theſe I will add but three or four Teſtimonies more in the two following Ages.
The firſt ſhall be of Theodoret, who ſpeaking of that.*Gen. 49.11. Prophecy of Jacob concerning our Saviour, he waſhed his garments in Wine and his clothes in the bloud of grapes, hath theſe words,†Dialog. 1. as we call the myſtical fruit of the Vine (that is, the Wine in the Sacrament) after conſecration the bloud of the Lord, ſo he (viz. Jacob) calls the bloud of the true Vine (viz. of Chriſt) the bloud of the grape: but the bloud of Chriſt is not liberally and properly but onelyonly figuratively the bloud of the grape, in the ſame ſenſe as he is ſaid to be the true Vine; and therefore the Wine in the Sacrament after conſecration is in like manner not literally and properly but figuratively the bloud of Chriſt. And he explains this afterwards, ſaying, that our Saviour changed the names, and gave to his Body the name of the Symbol or Sign, and to the Symbol or Sign the name of his Body; thus when he had call'd himſelf the Vine, he call'd the Symbol or Sign his bloud; ſo that in the ſame ſenſe that he call'd himſelf the Vine, he call'd the Wine, which is the Symbol of his his bloud, his bloud: For, ſays he, he would have thoſe who partake of the divine myſteries not to attend to the nature of the things which are ſeen, but by the change of names to believe the change which is made by grace; for he who call'd that which by nature is body wheat and bread, and again likewiſe call'd himſelf the Vine, he honour'd the Symbols with the name of his body and bloud: not changing nature but adding grace to nature. Where you ſee he ſyas expreſly, that when he call'd the Symbols or Elements of the Sacrament, viz. Bread and Wine his Body and Bloud, he made no change in the nature of the things, onelyonly added grace to nature, that is, by the Divine grace and bleſſing he raiſed them to a Spiritual and Supernatural virtue and efficacy.
The Second is of the ſame Theodoret in his ſecond Dialogue between a Catholique, under the name of Orthodoxus, and an Heretique under the name of Eraniſtes; who maintaining that the Humanity of Chriſt was chang'd into the ſubſtance of the Divinity (which was the Hereſie of Eutychees) he illuſtrates the matter by this Similitude, As, ſays he, the Symbols of the Lord's body and bloud are one thing before the invocation of the Prieſt, but after the invocation are changed and become another thing; So the body of our Lord after his aſcenſion is changed into the divine ſubſtance. But what ſays the Catholique Orthodoxus to this? why, he talks juſt like one of Cardinal Perron's Heretiques, Thou art, ſays he, caught in thy own net: becauſe the myſtical Symbols after conſecration do not paſs out of their own nature; for they remain in their former ſubſtance, figure and appearance and may be ſeen and handled even as before. He does not onelyonly deny the outward figure and appearance of the Symbols to be chang'd, but the nature and ſubſtance of them, even in the proper and ſtricteſt ſenſe of the word ſubſtance; and it was neceſſary ſo to do, otherwiſe he had not given a pertinent anſwer to the ſimilitude urg'd againſt him.
The next is one of their own Popes, Gelaſius, who brings the ſame Inſtance againſt the Eutychians; *Biblioth. Patr. Tom.ſurely, ſays he, the Sacraments which we receive of the body and bloud of our Lord are a divine thing, ſo that by them we are made partakers of a divine nature, and yet it ceaſeth not to be the ſubſtance or nature of Bread and Wine; and certainly the image and reſemblance of Chriſt's body and bloud are celebrated in the action of the myſteries, that is, in the Sacrament. To make this Inſtance of any force againſt the Eutychians, who held that the body of Chriſt upon his aſcenſion ceas'd and was chang'd into the ſubſtance of his Divinity, it was neceſſary to deny that there was any ſubſtantial change in the Sacrament of the bread and wine into the body and bloud of Chriſt. So that here is an infallible authority, one of their own Popes expreſly againſt Tranſubſantiation.
The laſt Teſtimony I ſhall produce is of Facundus an African Biſhop, who lived in the 6th Century. Upon occaſion of juſtifying an expreſſion of one who had ſaid that Chriſt alſo received the adoption of Sons, he reaſons thus.*Facund. p. 144. edit. Pariſ. 1676. Chriſt vouchſafed to receive the Sacrament of adoption both when he was circumciſed and baptized: And the Sacrament of Adoption may be called adoption, as the Sacrament of bis body and bloud, which is in the conſecrated bread and cup, is by us called his body and bloud: not that the bread, ſays he, is properly his body and the cup his bloud, but becauſe they contain in them the myſteries of his body and bloud; hence alſo our Lord himſelf called the bleſſed bread and cup which he gave to his Diſciples his body and bloud. Can any man after this believe; that it was then, and had ever been, the univerſal and received Doctrine of the Chriſtian Church, that the bread and wine in the Sacrament are ſubſtantially changed into the proper and natural body and bloud of Chriſt?
By theſe plain Teſtimonies which I have produced, and I might have brought a great many more to the ſame purpoſe, it is I think evident beyond all denial that Tranſubſtantiation hath not been the perpetual belief of the Chriſtian Church. And this likewiſe is acknowledged by many great and learned men of the Roman Church. (a)In Sent. l. 4. Diſt. 11. Q 3.Scotus acknowledgeth, that this Doctrine was not always thought neceſſary to be believed, but that the neceſſity of believing it was conſequent to that Declaration of the Church made in the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocent the III. And(b)In Sent. l. 4. diſt. 11. q. 1. n. 15. Durandus freely diſcovers his inclination to have believed the contrary, if the Church had not by that determination obliged men to believe it. (c)de Euchar. l. 1. p. 146.Tonſtal Biſhop of Durham alſo yields that before the Lateran Council men were at liberty as to the manner of Chriſt's preſence in the Sacrament. And(d)In 1 Epiſt. ad Corinth. c. 7. citante etiam Salmerone, Tom. 9. Tract. 16. p. 108. Eraſmus, who lived and died in the communion of the Roman Church, and than whom no man was better read in the ancient Fathers, doth confeſs that it was late before the Church defined Tranſubſtantiation unknown to the Ancients both name and thing. And(e)De Haereſ. l. 8. Alphonſus a Caſtro ſays plainly, that concerning the Tranſubſtantiation of the bread into the body of Chriſt, there is ſeldom any mention in the ancient Writers. And who can imagine that theſe learned men would have granted the ancient Church and Fathers to have been ſo much Strangers to this Doctrine, had they thought it to have been the perpetual belief of the Church? I ſhall now in the
Second place, give an account of the particular time and occaſion of the coming in of this Doctrine, and by what ſteps and degrees it grew up and was advanced into an Article of Faith in the Romiſh Church. The Doctrine of the corporal preſence of Chriſt was firſt ſtarted upon occaſion of the Diſpute about the Worſhip of Images, in oppoſition whereto the Synod of Conſtantinople about the year DCCL did argue thus, That our Lord having left us no other image of himſelf but the Sacrament, in which the ſubſtance of bread is the image of his body, we ought to make no other image of our Lord. In anſwer to this Argument the ſecond Council of Nice, in the year DCCLXXXVII did declare, that the Sacrament after Conſecration is not the image and antitype of Chriſt's body and bloud, but is properly his body and bloud. So that the corporal preſence of the body of Chriſt in the Sacrament was firſt brought in to ſupport the ſtupid Worſhip of Images: And indeed it could never have come in upon a more proper occaſion, not have been applied to a fitter purpoſe.
And here I cannot but take notice how well this agrees with*De Euchariſt. l. 1. c. 1. Bellarmine's Obſervation, that none of the Ancients who wrote of Hereſies, hath put this errour (viz of denying Tranſubſtantiation) in his Caralogue; nor did any of the Ancients diſpute againſt this errour for the firſt 600 years. Which is very true, becauſe there could be no occaſion then to diſpute againſt thoſe who demed Tranſubſtantiation; ſince, as I have ſhewn, this Doctrine was not in being unleſs among the Eutychian Heretiques, for the firſt 600 years and more. But†Ibid. Bellarmine goes on and tells us, that the firſt who call'd in queſtion the truth of the body of the Lord in the Euchariſt were the ICONOMACHI (the oppoſers of Images) after the year DCC in the Council of Conſtantinople; for theſe ſaid there was one image of Chriſt inſtituted by Chriſt himſelf, viz. the bread and wine in the Euchariſt, which repreſents the body and bloud of Chriſt: Wherefore from that time the Greek Writers often admoniſh us that the Euchariſt is not the figure or image of the body of the Lord, but his true body, as appears from the VII. Synod; which agrees moſt exactly with the account which I have given of the firſt riſe of this Doctrine, which began with the corporal preſence of Chriſt in the Sacrament and afterwards proceeded to Tranſubſtantiation.
And as this was the firſt occaſion of introducing this Doctrine among the Greeks, ſo in the Latin or Roman Church Paſchaſius Radbertus, firſt a Monk, and afterwards Abbot of Corbey, was the firſt broacher of it in the year DCCCXVIII.
And for this, beſides the Evidence of Hiſtory, we have the acknowledgment of two very Eminent Perſons in the Church of Rome, Bellarmine and Sirmondus, who do in effect confeſs that this Paſchaſius was the firſt who wrote to purpoſe upon this Argument.*De Scriptor. Eccleſ. Bellarmine in theſe words, This Authour was the firſt who hath ſeriouſly and copiouſly written concerning the truth of Chriſt's body and bloud in the Euchariſt: And†In vita Paſchaſii. Sirmondus in theſe, he ſo firſt explained the genuine ſenſe of the Catholique Church, that he opened the way to the reſt who afterwards in great numbers wrote upon the ſame Argument: But though Sirmondus is pleaſed to ſay that he onelyonly firſt explain'd the ſenſe of the Catholique Church in this Point, yet it is very plain from the Records of that Age which are left to us, that this was the firſt time that this Doctrine was broached in the Latin Church; and it met with great oppoſition in that Age, as I ſhall have occaſion hereafter to ſhew. For Rabanus Maurus Arch-Biſhop of Mentz about the year DCCCXLVII reciting the very words of Paſchaſius wherein he had deliver'd this Doctrine, hath this remarkable paſſage concerning the novelty of it;‖Epiſt. ad Heribaldum. c. 33. Some, ſays he, of late, not having a right opinion concerning the Sacrament of the body and bloud of our Lord, have ſaid that this is the body and bloud of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which our Lord ſuffered upon the Croſs and roſe from the dead: which errour, ſays he, we have oppos'd with all our might. From whence it is plain, by the Teſtimony of one of the greateſt and moſt learned Biſhops of that Age, and of eminent reputation for Piety, that what is now the very Doctrine of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament, was then eſteem'd an Errour broach'd by ſome particular Perſons, but was far from being the generally receiv'd Doctrine of that Age. Can any one think it poſſible, that ſo eminent a Perſon in the Church both for piety and learning, could have condemn'd this Doctrine as an Errour and a Novelty, had it been the general Doctrine of the Chriſtian Church, not onelyonly in that but in all former Ages; and no cenſure paſs'd upon him for that which is now the great burning Article, in the Church of Rome and eſteemed by them one of the greateſt and moſt pernicious Hereſies?
Afterwards in the year MLIX, when Berengarius in France and Germany had rais'd a freſh oppoſition againſt this Doctrine, he was compell'd to recant it by Pope Nicholas and the Council at Rome, in theſe words,*Gratian. de conſecrat. diſtinct. 2. Lanfranc. de corp. & ſing. Domini. c. 5. Guitmund. de Sacram. l. 1. Alger. de Sacram. l. 1. c. 19. that the bread and wine which are ſet upon the Altar, after the conſecration are not onelyonly the Sacrament, but the true body and bloud of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt; and are ſenſibly, not onelyonly in the Sacrament but in truth, handled and broken by the hands of the Prieſt, and ground or bruiſed by the teeth of the faithfull. But it ſeems the Pope and his Council were not then skilfull enough to expreſs themſelves rightly in this matter; for the Gloſs upon the Canon Law ſays expreſly,†Gloſs. Decret. de conſecrat. diſt. 2. in cap. Ego Berengarius. that unleſs we underſtand theſe words of BERENGARIƲS (that is in truth of the Pope and his Council) in a ſound ſenſe, we ſhall fall into a greater Hereſie than that of BERENGARIƲS; for we do not make parts of the body of Chriſt. The meaning of which Gloſs I cannot imagine, unleſs it be this, that the Body of Chriſt, though it be in truth broken, yet it is not broken into parts (for we do not make parts of the bods of Chriſt,) but into wholes: Now this new way of breaking a Body, not into parts but into wholes (which in good earneſt) is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome) though to them that are able to believe Tranſubſtantiation it may for any thing I know appear to be ſound ſenſe, yet to us that cannot believe ſo it appears to be ſolid non-ſenſe.
About XX years after, in the year MLXXIX Pope Gregory the VIIth. began to be ſenſible of this abſurdity; and therefore in another Council at Rome made Berengarius to recant in another Form, viz.*Waldenſ. Tom. 2. c. 13. that the bread and wine which are placed upon the Altar, are ſubſtantially changed into the true and proper and quickning fleſh and bloud of our Lord Jeſus Chriſt, and after conſecration are the true body of Chriſt, which was born of the Virgin, and which being offered for the Salvation of the World did hang upon the Croſs, and ſits on the right hand of the Father.
So that from the firſt ſtarting of this Doctrine in the ſecond Council of Nice in the year DCCLXXXVII, till the Council under Pope Gregory the VIIth. in the year MLXXIX, it was almoſt three hundred years that this Doctrine was conteſted, and before this miſhapen Monſter of Tranſubſtantiation could be lick'd into that Form in which it is now ſetled and eſtabliſh'd in the Church of Rome. Here then is a plain account of the firſt riſe of this Doctrine, and of the ſeveral ſteps whereby it was advanced by the Church of Rome into an Article of Faith. I come now in the
Third place, to anſwer the great pretended Demonſtration of the impoſſibility that this Doctrine, if it had been new, ſhould ever have come in, in any Age, and been received in the Church; and conſequently it muſt of neceſſity have been the perpetual belief of the Church in all Ages: For if it had not always been the Doctrine of the Church, whenever it had attempted firſt to come in there would have been a great ſtir and buſtle about it, and the whole Chriſtian World would have roſe up in oppoſition to it. But we can ſhew no ſuch time when firſt it came in, and when any ſuch oppoſition was made to it, and therefore it was always the Doctrine of the Church. This Demonſtration Monſieur Arnauld, a very learned Man in France, pretends to be unanſwerable; whether it be ſo or not, I ſhall briefly examine. And
Firſt, we do aſſign a punctual and very likely time of the firſt riſe of this Doctrine, about the beginning of the ninth Age; though it did not take firm root nor was fully ſetled and eſtabliſh'd till towards the end of the eleventh. And this was the moſt likely time of all other, from the beginning of Chriſtianity, for ſo groſs an Error to appear; it being, by the confeſſion and conſent of their own Hiſtorians, the moſt dark and diſmal time that ever happened to the Chriſtian Church, both for Ignorance, and Superſtition, and Vice. It came in together with Idolatry, and was made uſe of to ſupport it: A fit prop and companion for it. And indeed what tares might not the Enemy have ſown in ſo dark and long a Night; when ſo conſiderable a part of the Chriſtian World was lull'd aſleep in profound Ignorance and Superſtition? And this agrees very well with the account which our Saviour himſelf gives in the Parable of the Tares, of the ſpringing up of Errours and Corruptions in the Field of the Church.*Matth. 13.24. While the men ſlept the Enemy did his work in the Night; ſo that when they were awake they wondered how and whence the tares came; but being ſure they were there, and that they were not ſown at firſt, they concluded the Enemy had done it.
Secondly, I have ſhewn likewiſe that there was conſiderable oppoſition made to this Errour at its firſt coming in. The general Ignorance and groſs Superſtition of that Age rendered the generality of people more quiet and ſecure, and diſpoſed them to receive any thing that came under a pretence of myſtery in Religion and of greater reverence and devotion to the Sacrament, and that ſeemed any way to countenance the worſhip of Images, for which at that time they were zealouſly concern'd. But notwithſtanding the ſecurity and paſſive temper of the People, the men moſt eminent for piety and learning in that Time made great reſiſtance againſt it. I have already named Rabanus Arch Biſhop of Mentz, who oppos'd it as an Errour lately ſprung up and which had then gained but upon ſome few perſons. To whom I may add Heribaldus Biſhop of Auxerres in France, Io. Scotus, Erigena, and Ratramnus commonly known by the name of Bertram, who at the ſame time were employed by the Emperour Charles the Bald to oppoſe this growing Errour, and wrote, learnedly againſt it. And theſe were the eminent men for learning in that time. And becauſe Monſieur Arnauld will not be ſatisfied unleſs there were ſome ſtir and buſtle about it, Bertram in his Preface to his Book tells us, that they who according to their ſeveral opinions talked differently about the myſtery of Chriſt's body and bloud were divided by no ſmall Schiſm.
Thirdly, Though for a more clear and ſatisfactory anſwer to this pretended Demonſtration I have been contented to untie this knot, yet I could without all theſe pains have cut it. For ſuppoſe this Doctrine had ſilently come in and without oppoſition, ſo that we could not aſſign the particular time and occaſion of its firſt Riſe; yet if it be evident from the Records of former Ages, for above D. years together, that this was not the ancient belief of the Church; and plain alſo, that this Doctrine was afterwards received in the Roman Church, though we could not tell how and when it came in, yet it would be the wildeſt and moſt extravagant thing in the world to ſet up a pretended Demonſtration of Reaſon againſt plain Experience and matter of Fact. This is juſt Zenoe's Demonſtration of the impoſſibility of motion againſt Diogenes walking before his Eyes. For this is to undertake to prove that impoſſible to have been, which moſt certainly was. Juſt thus the Servants in the Parable might have demonſtrated that the tares were wheat, becauſe they were ſure none but good ſeed was ſown at firſt, and no man could give any account of the punctual time when any tares were ſown, or by whom; and if an Enemy had come to do it, he muſt needs have met with great reſiſtance and oppoſition; but no ſuch reſiſtance was made, and therefore there could be no tares in the field, but that which they call'd tares was certainly good wheat. At the ſame rate a man might demonſtrate that our King, his Majeſty of great Britain, is not return'd into England, nor reſtor'd to his Crown; becauſe there being ſo great and powerfull an Army poſſeſs'd of his Lands, and therefore obliged by intereſt to keep him out, it was impoſſible he ſhould ever come in without a great deal of fighting and bloudſhed: but there was no ſuch thing, therefore he is not return'd and reſtor'd to his Crown. And by the like kind of Demonſtration one might prove that the Turk did not invade Chriſtendom laſt year, and beſiege Vienna; becauſe if he had, the moſt Chriſtian King, who had the greateſt Army in Chriſtendom in a readineſs, would certainly have employed it againſt him; but Monſieur Arnauld certainly knows no ſuch thing was done: And therefore according to his way of Demonſtration, the matter of fact, ſo commonly reported and believed, concerning the Turks Invaſion of Chriſtendom and beſieging Vienna laſt year, was a perfect miſtake. But a man may demonſtrate till his head and heart ake, before he ſhall ever be able to prove that which certainly is, or was, never to have been. For of all ſorts of impoſſibles nothing is more evidently ſo, than to make that which hath been not to have been. All the reaſon in the world is too weak to cope with ſo tough and obſtinate a difficulty. And I have often wonder'd how a man of Monſieur Arnauld's great wit and ſharp Judgment could prevail with himſelf to engage in ſo bad and baffled a Cauſe; or could think to defend it with ſo wooden a Dagger as his Demonſtration of Reaſon againſt certain Experience and matter of Fact: A thing if it be poſſible, of equal abſurdity with what he pretends to demonſtrate, Tranſubſtantiation it ſelf. I proceed to the
Third pretended Ground of this Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation; and that is, The Infallible Authority of the preſent Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith. And this in truth is the ground into which the moſt of the learned men of their Church did heretofore, and many do ſtill reſolve their belief of this Doctrine: And, as I have already ſhewn, do plainly ſay that they ſee no ſufficient reaſon, either from Scripture or Tradition, for the belief of it: And that they ſhould have believed the contrary had not the determination of the Church obliged them otherwiſe.
But if this Doctrine be obtruded upon the world merely by virtue of the Authority of the Roman Church, and the Declaration of the Council under Pope Gregory the VIIth. or of the Lateran Council under Innocent the III. then it is a plain Innovation in the Chriſtian Doctrine, and a new Article of Faith impos'd upon the Chriſtian world. And if any Church hath this power, the Chriſtian Faith may be enlarged and changed as often as men pleaſe; and that which is no part of our Saviour's Doctrine, nay, any thing though never ſo abſurd and unreaſonable, may become an Article of Faith obliging all Chriſtians to the belief of it, whenever the Church of Rome ſhall think fit to ſtamp her Authority upon it: which would make Chriſtianity a moſt uncertain and endleſs thing.
The Fourth pretended ground of this Doctrine is, the neceſſity of ſuch a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of thoſe who receive it. But there is no colour for this, if the thing be rightly conſider'd: Becauſe the comfort and benefit of the Sacrament depends upon the bleſſing annexed to the Inſtitution. And as Water in Baptiſm, without any ſubſtantial change made in that Element, may by the Divine bleſſing accompanying the Inſtitution be effectual to the waſhing away of Sin, and Spiritual Regeneration; So there can no reaſon in the world be given why the Elements of Bread and Wine in the Lord's Supper may not, by the ſame Divide bleſſing accompanying this Inſtitution, make the worthy receivers partakers of all the Spiritual comfort and benefit deſigned to us thereby without any ſubſtantial change made in thoſe Elements, ſince our Lord hath told us, that verily the fleſh profiteth nothing. So that if we could do ſo odd and ſtrange a thing as to eat the very natural fleſh and drink the bloud of our Lord, I do not ſee of what greater advantage it would be to us than what we may have by partaking of the Symbols of his body and bloud as he hath appointed in remembrance of him. For the Spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament doth not depend upon the nature of the thing received, ſuppoſing we receive what our Lord appointed, and receive it with a right preparation and diſpoſition of mind, but upon the ſupernatural bleſſing that goes along with it, and makes it effectual to thoſe ſpiritual ends for which it was appointed.
The Fifth and laſt pretended ground of this Doctrine is, to magnifie the power of the Prieſt in being able to work ſo great a Miracle. And this with great pride and pomp is often urg'd by them as a tranſcendent inſtance of the Divine wiſedom, to find out ſo admirable a way to raiſe the power and reverence of the Prieſt; that he ſhould be able every day, and as often as he pleaſes, by repeating a few words to work ſo miraculous a change, and (as they love moſt abſurdly and blaſphemouſly to ſpeak) to make God himſelf.
But this is to pretend to a power above that of God himſelf, for he did not, nor cannot make himſelf, nor do any thing that implies a contradiction, as Tranſubſtantiation evidently does in their pretending to make God. For to make that which already is, and to make that now which always was, is not onelyonly vain and trifling if it could be done, but impoſſible becauſe it implies a contradiction.
And what if after all Tranſubſtantiation, if it were poſſible and actually wrought by the Prieſt, would yet be no Miracle? For there are two things neceſſary to a Miracle that there be a ſupernatural effect wrought, and that this effect be evident to ſenſe. So that though a ſupernatural effect be wrought, yet if it be not evident to ſenſe it is to all the ends and purpoſes of a Miracle as if it were not; and can be no teſtimony or proof of any thing, becauſe it ſelf ſtands in need of another Miracle to give teſtimony to it and to prove that it was wrought. And neither in Scripture, nor in profane Authours, nor in common uſe of ſpeech, is any thing call'd a Miracle but what falls under the notice of our ſenſes: A Miracle being nothing elſe but a ſupernatural effect evident to ſenſe, the great end and deſign whereof is to be a ſenſible proof and conviction to us of ſomething that we do not ſee.
And for want of this Condition, Tranſubſtantiation, if it were true, would be no Miracle. It would indeed be very ſupernatural, but for all that it would not be a Sign or Miracle: For a Sign or Miracle is always a thing ſenſible, otherwiſe it could be no Sign. Now that ſuch a change as is pretended in Tranſubſtantiation ſhould really be wrought, and yet there ſhould be no ſign and appearance of it, is a thing very wonderfull, but, not to ſenſe; for our ſenſes perceive no change, the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament to all our ſenſes remaining juſt as they were before: And that a thing ſhould remain to all appearance juſt as it was, hath nothing at all of wonder in it: we wonder indeed when we ſee a ſtrange thing done, but no man wonders when he ſees nothing done. So that Tranſubſtantiation, if they will needs have it a Miracle, is ſuch a Miracle as any man may work that hath but the confidence to face men down that he works it, and the fortune to be believed: And though the Church of Rome may magnify their Prieſts upon account of this Miracle, which they ſay they can work every day and every hour, yet I cannot underſtand the reaſon of it; for when this great work (as they call it) is done, there is nothing more appears to be done than if there were no Miracle: Now ſuch a Miracle as to all appearance is no Miracle I ſee no reaſon why a Proteſtant Miniſter, as well as a Popiſh Prieſt, may not work as often as he pleaſes; or if he can but have the patience to let it alone, it will work it ſelf. For ſurely nothing in the world is eaſier than to let a thing be as it is, and by ſpeaking a few words over it to make it juſt what it was before. Every man, every day, may work ten thouſand ſuch Miracles.
And thus I have diſpathc'd the Firſt part of my Diſcourſe, which was to conſider the pretended grounds and Reaſons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine, and to ſhew the weakneſs and inſufficiency of them. I come in the
SECOND place, to produce our Objections againſt it. Which will be of ſo much the greater force, becauſe I have already ſhewn this Doctrine to be deſtitute of all Divine warrant and authority, and of any other ſort of Ground ſufficient in reaſon to juſtify it. So that I do not now object againſt a Doctrine which hath a fair probability of Divine Revelation on its ſide, for that would weigh down all objections, which did not plainly overthrow the probability and credit of its Divine Revelation: But I object againſt a Doctrine by the mere will and Tyranny of men impos'd upon the belief of Chriſtians, without any evidence of Scripture, and againſt all the evidence of Reaſon and Senſe.
The Objection I ſhall reduce to theſe two Heads. Firſt, The infinite ſcandal of this Doctrine to the Chriſtian Religion. And Secondly, The monſtrous and inſupportable abſurdity of it.
Firſt, The infinite ſcandal of this Doctrine to the Chriſtian Religion. And that upon theſe four accounts. 1. Of the ſtupidity of this Doctrine. 2. The real barbarouſneſs of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion upon ſuppoſition of the truth of this Doctrine. 3. Of the cruel and bloudy conſequences of it. 4. Of the danger of Idolatry; which they are certainly guilty of, if this Doctrine be not true.
1. Upon account of the ſtupidity of this Doctrine. I remember that Tully, who was a man of very good ſenſe, inſtanceth in the conceit of eating God as the extremity of madneſs, and ſo ſtupid an apprehenſion as he thought no man was ever guilty of.*De Nat. Deorum. l. 3. When we call, ſays he, the fruits of the earth Ceres, and wine Bacchus, we uſe but the common language; but do you think any man ſo mad as to believe that which he eats to be God? It ſeems he could not believe that ſo extravagant a folly had ever entred into the mind of man. It is a very ſevere ſaying of Averroes the Arabian Philoſopher (who lived after this Doctrine was entertained among Chriſtians) and ought to make the Church or Rome bluſh,*Dionyſ. Carthuſ. in 4. diſt. 10. art. 1. if ſhe can; I have travell'd, ſays he, over the world, and have found divers Sects; but ſo ſottiſh a Sect or Law I never found, as is the Sect of the Chriſtians; becauſe with their own teeth they devour their God whom they worſhip. It was great ſtupidity in the People of Iſrael to ſay, Come let us make us Gods; but it was civilly ſaid of them, Let us make us Gods that may go before us, in compariſon of the Church of Rome, who ſay, Let us make a God that we may eat him. So that upon the whole matter I cannot but wonder that they ſhould chuſe thus to expoſe Faith to the contempt of all that are endued with Reaſon. And to ſpeak the plain truth, the Chriſtian Religion was never ſo horribly expoſed to the ſcorn of Atheiſts and Infidels, as it hath been by this moſt abſurd and ſenſeleſs Doctrine. But thus it was foretold that†2 Theſſ. 2.10. the Man of Sin ſhould come with Power and Signs and Lying Miracles, and with all deceiveableneſs of unrighteouſneſs, with all the Legerdemain and jugling tricks of falſhood and impoſture; amongſt which this of Tranſubſtantiation, which they call a Miracle, and we a Cheat, is one of the chief: And in all probability thoſe common jugling words of hocus pocus, are nothing elſe but a corruption of hoc eſt corpus, by way of ridiculous imitation of the Prieſts of the Church of Rome in their trick of Tranſubſtantiation. Into ſuch contempt by this fooliſh Doctrine and pretended Miracle of theirs have they brought the moſt ſacred and venerable Myſtery of our Religion.
2. It is very ſcandalous likewiſe upon account of the real barbarouſneſs of this Sacrament and Rite of our Religion, upon ſuppoſition of the truth of this Doctrine. Literally to eat the fleſh of the Son of man and to drink his bloud, St. Auſtin, as I have ſhewed before, declares to be a great Impiety. And the impiety and barbarouſneſs of the thing is not in truth extenuated, but onelyonly the appearance of it, by its being done under the Species of Bread and Wine: For the thing they acknowledge is really done, and they believe that they verily eat and drink the natural fleſh and bloud of Chriſt. And what can any man do more unworthily towards his Friend? How can he poſſibly uſe him more barbarouſly, than to feaſt upon his living fleſh and bloud? It is one of the greateſt wonders in the world, that it ſhould ever enter into the minds of men to put upon our Saviour's words, ſo eaſily capable of a more convenient ſenſe, and ſo neceſſarily requiring it, a meaning ſo plainly contrary to Reaſon, and Senſe, and even to Humanity it ſelf. Had the ancient Chriſtians owned any ſuch Doctrine, we ſhould have heard of it from the Adverſaries of our Religion in every page of their Writings; and they would have deſired no greater advantage againſt the Chriſtians than to have been able to hit them in the teeth with their feaſting upon the natural fleſh and Bloud of their Lord, and their God, and their beſt Friend. What endleſs triumphs would they have made upon this Subject? And with what confidence would they have ſet the cruelty uſed by Chriſtians in their Sacrament, againſt their God Saturn's eating his own Children, and all the cruel and bloudy Rites of their Idolatry? But that no ſuch thing was then objected by the Heathens to the Chriſtians, is to a wiſe man inſtead of a thouſand Demonſtrations that no ſuch Doctrine was then believed.
3. It is ſcandalous alſo upon account of the cruel and bloudy conſequences of this Doctrine; ſo contrary to the plain Laws of Chriſtianity, and to one great end and deſign of this Sacrament, which is to unite Chriſtians in the moſt perfect love and charity to one another: Whereas this Doctrine hath been the occaſion of the moſt barbarous and bloudy Tragedies that ever were acted in the World. For this hath been in the Church of Rome the great burning Article: and as abſurd and unreaſonable as it is, more Chriſtians have been murthered for the denyal of it than perhaps for all the other Articles of their Religion. And I think it may generally paſs for a true obſervation that all Sects are commonly moſt hot and furious for thoſe things for which there is leaſt Reaſon; for what men want of Reaſon for their opinions, they uſually ſupply and make up in Rage. And it was no more than needed to uſe this ſeverity upon this occaſion; for nothing but the cruel fear of death could in probability have driven ſo great a part of mankind into the acknowledgment of ſo unreaſonable and ſenſeleſs a Doctrine.
O bleſſed Saviour! I thou beſt Friend and greateſt lover of mankind, who can imagine thou didſt ever intend that men ſhould kill one another for not being able to believe contrary to their ſenſes; for being unwilling to think, that thou ſhouldſt make one of the moſt horrid and barbarous things that can be imagin'd a main Duty and principal Myſtery of thy Religion; for not flattering the pride and preſumption of the Prieſt who ſays he can make God, and for not complying with the folly and ſtupidity of the People who are made to believe that they can eat him?
4. Upon account of the danger of Idolatry; which they are certainly guilty of if this Doctrine be not true, and ſuch a change as they pretend be not made in the Sacrament; for if it be not, then they worſhip a Creature inſtead of the Creatour God bleſſed for ever. But ſuch a change I have ſhewn to be impoſſible; or if it could be, yet they can never be certain that it is, and conſequently are always in danger of Idolatry: and that they can never be certain that ſuch a change is made, is evident; becauſe, according to the expreſs determination of the Council of Trent, that depends upon the mind and intention of the Prieſt, which cannot certainly be known but by Revelation, which is not pretended in this caſe. And if they be miſtaken about this change, through the knavery or croſſneſs of the Prieſt who will not make God but when he thinks fit, they muſt not think to excuſe themſelves from Idolatry becauſe they intended to worſhip God and not a Creature; for ſo the Perſians might be excus'd from Idolatry in worſhipping the Sun, becauſe they intend to worſhip God and not a Creature; and ſo indeed we may excuſe all the Idolatry that ever was in the world, which is nothing elſe but a miſtake of the Deity, and upon that miſtake a worſhipping of ſomething as God which is not God.
II. Beſides the infinite ſcandal of this Doctrine upon the accounts I have mentioned, the monſtrous abſurdities of it make it inſupportable to any Religion. I am very well aſſur'd of the grounds of Religion in general, and of the Chriſtian Religion in particular; and yet I cannot ſee that the foundations of any revealed Religion, are ſtrong enough to bear the weight of ſo many and ſo great abſurdities as this Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation would load it withall. And to make this evident, I ſhall not inſiſt upon thoſe groſs contradictions, of the ſame Body being in ſo many ſeveral places at once; of our Saviour's giving away himſelf with his own hands to every one of his Diſciples, and yet ſtill keeping himſelf to himſelf; and a thouſand more of the like nature: but to ſhew the abſurdity of this Doctrine I ſhall only ask theſe few Queſtions.
1. Whether any man have, or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation than any man hath of the falſhood of Tranſubſtantiation? Infidelity were hardly poſſible to men, if all men had the ſame evidence for the Chriſtian Religion which they have againſt Tranſubſtantiation, that is, the clear and irreſiſtible evidence of ſenſe. He that can once be brought to contradict or deny his ſenſes, is at an end of certainty; for what can a man be certain of if he be not certain of what he ſees? In ſome circumſtances our ſenſes may deceive us, but no Faculty deceives us ſo little and ſo ſeldom: And when our ſenſes do deceive us, even that errour is not to be corrected without the help of our ſenſes.
2. Suppoſing this Doctrine had been delivered in Scripture in the very ſame words that it is decreed in the Council of Trent, by what clearer evidence or ſtronger Argument could any man prove to me that ſuch words were in the Bible than I can prove to him that bread and wine after conſecration are bread and wine ſtill? He could but appeal to my eyes to prove ſuch words to be in the Bible, and with the ſame reaſon and juſtice might I appeal to ſeveral of his ſenſes to prove to him that the bread and wine after conſecration are bread and wine ſtill.
3. Whether it be reaſonable to imagine that God ſhould make that a part of the Chriſtian Religion which ſhakes the main external evidence and confirmation of the whole? I mean the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apoſtles, the aſſurance whereof did at firſt depend upon the certainty of ſenſe. For if the ſenſes of thoſe who ſay they ſaw them were deceived, then there might be no Miracles wrought; and conſequently it may juſtly be doubted whether that kind of confirmation which God hath given to the Chriſtian Religion would be ſtrong enough to prove it, ſuppoſing Tranſubſtantiation to be a part of it: Becauſe every man hath as great evidence that Tranſubſtantiation is falſe, as he hath that the Chriſtian Religion is true. Suppoſe then Tranſubſtantiation to be part of the Chriſtian Doctrine, it muſt have the ſame confirmation with the whole, and that is Miracles: But of all Doctrines in the world it is peculiarly incapable of being proved by a Miracle. For if a Miracle were wrought for the proof of it, the very ſame aſſurance which any man hath of the truth of the Miracle he hath of the falſhood of the Doctrine, that is, the clear evidence of his Senſes. For that there is a Miracle wrought to prove that what he ſees in the Sacrament is not bread but the body of Chriſt, there is onelyonly the evidence of ſenſe; and there is the very ſame evidence to prove that what he ſees in the Sacrament is not the body of Chriſt but bread. So that here would ariſe a new Controverſie, whether a man ſhould rather believe his Senſes giving teſtimony againſt the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation, or bearing witneſs to a Miracle wrought to confirm that Doctrine; there being the very ſame evidence againſt the truth of the Doctrine, which there is for the truth of the Miracle: And then the Argument for Tranſubſtantiation and the Objection againſt it would juſt ballance one another; and conſequently Tranſubſtantiation is not to be proved by a Miracle, becauſe that would be, to prove to a man by ſome thing that he ſees, that he doth not ſee what he ſees. And if there were no other evidence that Tranſubſtantiation is no part of the Chriſtian Doctrine, this would be ſufficient, that what proves the one doth as much overthrow the other; and that Miracles which are certainly the beſt and higheſt external proof of Chriſtianity are the worſt proof in the world of Tranſubſtantiation, unleſs a man can renounce his ſenſes at the ſame time that he relies upon them. For a man cannot believe a Miracle without relying upon ſenſe, nor Tranſubſtantiation without renouncing it. So that never were any two things ſo ill coupled together as the Doctrine of Chriſtianity and that of Tranſubſtantiation, becauſe they draw ſeveral ways, and are ready to ſtrangle one another: For the main evidence of the Chriſtian Doctrine, which is Miracles, is reſolved into the certainty of ſenſe, but this evidence is clear and point-blank againſt Tranſubſtantiation.
4. And Laſtly, I would ask what we are to think of the Argument which our Saviour uſed to convince his Diſciples after his Reſurrection that his Body was really riſen, and that they were not deluded by a Ghoſt or Apparition? Is it a neceſſary and concluſive Argument or not?*Luk. 24.38, 39. And he ſaid unto them, why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts ariſe in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I my ſelf; for a Spirit hath not fleſh and bones, as ye ſee me have. But now if we ſuppoſe with the Church of Rome the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation to be true, and that he had inſtructed his Diſciples in it juſt before his death, ſtrange thoughts might juſtly have riſen in their hearts, and they might have ſaid to him; Lord, it is but a few days ago ſince thou didſt teach us not to believe our ſenſes, but directly contrary to what we ſaw, viz. that the bread which thou gaveſt us in the Sacrament, though we ſaw it and handled it and taſted it to be bread, yet was not bread, but thine own natural body; and now thou appealed to our ſenſes to prove that this is thy body which we now ſee. If ſeeing and handling be an unqueſtionable evidence that things are what they appear to our ſenſes, then we were deceived before in the Sacrament; and if they be not, then we are not ſure now that this is thy body which we now ſee and handle, but it may be perhaps bread under the appearance of fleſh and bones; juſt as in the Sacrament, that which we ſaw and handled and taſted to be bread was thy fleſh and bones under the form and appearance of bread. Now upon this ſuppoſition it would have been a hard matter to have quieted the thoughts of the Diſciples: For if the Argument which our Saviour uſed did certainly prove to them that what they ſaw and handled was his body, his very natural fleſh and bones, becauſe they ſaw and handled them, (which it were impious to deny) it would as ſtrongly prove that what they ſaw and received before in the Sacrament was not the natural body and bloud of Chriſt, but real bread and wine: And conſequently, that according to our Saviour's arguing after his Reſurrection they had no reaſon to believe Tranſubſtantiation before. For that very Argument by which our Saviour proves the reality of his body after his Reſurrection doth as ſtrongly prove the reality of bread and wine after Conſecration. But our Saviour's Argument was moſt: infallibly good and true, and therefore the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation is undoubtedly falſe.
Upon the whole matter I ſhall onelyonly ſay this, that ſome other Points between us and the Church of Rome are managed with ſome kind of wit and ſubtilty, but this of Tranſubſtantiation is carried out by mere dint of impudence and facing down of Mankind.
And of this the more diſcerning perſons of that Church are of late grown ſo ſenſible that they would now be glad to be rid of this odious and ridiculous Doctrine. But the Council of Trent hath rivetted it ſo faſt into their Religion, and made it ſo neceſſary and eſſential a Point of their belief, that they cannot now part with it if they would; it is like a Millſtone hung about the neck of Popery which will ſink it at the laſt.
And though ſome of their greateſt Wits, as Cardinal Perron, and of late Monſieur Arnauld, have undertaken the defence of it in great Volumes; yet it is an abſurdity of that monſtrous and maſſy weight, that no humane authority or wit are able to ſupport it: It will make the very Pillars of St. Peter's crack, and requires more Volumes to make it good than would fill the Vatican.
And now I would apply my ſelf to the poor deluded People of that Church, if they were either permitted by their Prieſts, or durſt venture without their leave, to look into their Religion and to examine the Doctrines of it. Conſider, and ſhew your ſelves men. Do not ſuffer your ſelves any longer to be led blindfold, and by an implicit Faith in your Prieſts, into the belief of nonſenſe and contradiction. Think it enough and too much to let them rook you of your money for pretended Pardons and counterfeit Reliques, but let not the Authority of any Prieſt or Church perſuade you out of your Senſes. Credulity is certainly a fault as well as Infidelity: and he who ſaid, bleſſed are they that have not ſeen and yet have believed, hath no where ſaid, bleſſed are they that have ſeen and yet have not believed, much leſs, bleſſed are they that believe directly contrary to what they ſee.
To conclude this Diſcourſe. By what hath been ſaid upon this Argument it will appear, with how little truth, and reaſon, and regard to the intereſt of our common Chriſtianity, it is ſo often ſaid by our Adverſaries, that there are as good arguments for the belief of Tranſubſtantiation as of the Doctrine of the Trinity: When they themſelves do acknowledge with us that the Doctrine of the Trinity is grounded upon the Scriptures, and that according to the interpretation of them by the conſent of the ancient Fathers: But their Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation I have plainly ſhewn to have no ſuch ground, and that this is acknowledged by very many learned men of their own Church. And this Doctrine of theirs being firſt plainly proved by us to be deſtitute of all Divine Warrant and Authority, our Objections againſt it from the manifold contradictions of it to Reaſon and Senſe are ſo many Demonſtrations of the falſhood of it. Againſt all which they have nothing to put in the oppoſite Scale but the Infallibility of their Church, for which there is even leſs colour of proof from Scripture than for Tranſubſtantiation it ſelf. But ſo fond are they of their own Innovations and Errours, that rather than the Dictates of their Church, how groundleſs and abſurd ſoever, ſhould be call'd in queſtion; rather than not have their will of us in impoſing upon us what they pleaſe, they will overthrow any Article of the Chriſtian Faith, and ſhake the very foundations of our common Religion: A clear evidence that the Church of Rome is not the true Mother, ſince ſhe can be ſo well contented that Chriſtianity ſhould be deſtroyed rather than the Point in queſtion ſhould be decided againſt her.