Page images

then to be shed, and his body to be broken, which was not till his Paffion, which followed the Inftitution and first celebration of this Sacrament.

Q. 6. art. 2.

But that there is no neceffity to understand our Saviour's words in the fenfe of Transubstantiation, I will take the plain conceffion of a great number of the most learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controverfie. (a) Bellarmine, (b) Suarez and (c) Vafquez (a) de Euch. do acknowledge Scotus the great Schoolman to have 3:23. faid that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved Qu.75.Sect.2.. (b)inz.dif.49. from Scripture: And Bellarmine grants this not to be (in 3. part.. improbable; and Suarez and Vafquez acknowledge (d) qu.75. art.2.. difp. 180. Durandus to have faid as much. (e) Ocham, another c. 15. famous Schoolman, fays exprefly, that the Doctrine (d) in Sent: 1.4. dift. 11. which holds the fubftance of the Bread and Wine to re- Q.1. n. 15. main after confecration is neither repugnant to Reason) in 4. Sent.. nor to Scripture. (f) Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Quodl•4• 2.3.. Cambray fays plainly, that the Doctrine of the Substance () in 4. Sent.. of Bread and Wine remaining after Confecration is more eafie and free from abfurdity, more rational, and no ways repugnant to the authority of Scripture; nay more, that for the other Doctrine, viz. of Tranfubftantiation, there is no evidence in Scripture. (g) Gabriel Biel, (g) in canon. another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church, Milj. Let.40.. freely declares, that as to any thing exprefs'd in the Canon of the Scriptures, a man may believe that the fubStance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Confecration: and therefore he refolves the belief of Tranfubftantiation into fome other Revelation, befides Scripture, which he fuppofeth the Church had about it. Cardinal (h) Cajetan confeffeth that the Gospel doth no where (h) in Aquin. express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Chrift; 3.part. Qu.75%.. 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

art. I.


[ocr errors]

Chrift, this is my body, in a proper and not a metaphorical fenfe; but the Church having understood them in

cram. Q.75.


proper fenfe they are to be fo explained; Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order (i) Egid.Co. of Pope (i) Pius V. Cardinal (k) Contarenus, and (1) nink, de Sa Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Wriart. 1. . 13. ters that Church ever had, reckon this Doctrine a(k) de mong thofe which are not fo exprefly found in Scripture. cram. L.2.c.3. (1) Loc. Theo- I will add but one more, of great authority in the g. 4. 3. c. 3. Church, and a reputed Martyr, (m) Fiber Bishop of (m) contra Rochester who ingenuously confefleth that in the words Lon. c. 10.8.2. of the Inftitution there is not one word from whence, the true presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in our Mafs can be proved: So that we need not much contend that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scripture, when this is fo fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adverfaries themselves.

captiv. Baby

Secondly, If there be no neceffity of understanding our Saviour's words in the fenfe of Tranfubftantiation, I am fure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise. Whether we confider the like expreffions in Scripture; as where our Saviour fays he is the door, and the true Vine (which the Church of Rome. would mightily have triumph'd in, had it been faid, this is my true body.) And fo likewife where the Church is faid to be Chrift's body; and the Rock which followed the Ifraelites to be Chrift, 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of that rock which followed them, and that rock was Chrift: All which and innumerable more like expreffions in Scripture every man understands in a figurative, and not in a strictly literal and abfurd sense. And it is very well known, that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly faid to be that which they do fignify and reprefent; and there is not in that Language a more proper and usual way of expreffing a


thing to fignifie fo and fo, than to fay that it is fo and fo. Thus Jofeph expounding Pharaoh's dream to him, Gen. 41. 26. Says, the feven good kine are seven years, and the feven good ears of corn are feven years, that is, they fignified or reprefented feven years of plenty; and fo Pharaoh understood him, and fo would any man of sense understand the like expreffions; nor do I believe that any fenfible man, who had never heard of Tranfubftantiation being grounded upon these words of our Saviour, this is my body, would upon reading the inftitution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagin'd any fuch thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words; but would have understood his meaning to have been, this Bread fignifies my Body, this Cup fignifies my Bloud; and this which you fee me now do, do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me : But furely 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 himfelf with his own hands.

P. 297. Edit.

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) Justin Martyr tells us, 7870 (n) Dialog. τὸ πάχα ὁ σωτὴς ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ καταφυγὴ ἡμῶν, cum Tryph. this Pallover is our Saviour and our refuge: not that they Parif. 1639. believed the Pafchal Lamb to be fubftantially changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt, or into the Meffias the Saviour whom they expected and who was fignified by it: But this Lamb which they did eat did reprefent to them and put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt, when by the flaying of a Lamb and fprinkling the bloud of it upon their doors their firft-born were paffed over and fpared; and did likewife forefhew the Salvation of the Mefias, the



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 fignified to the Sign. As the delivery of a Deed or Writing under hand and Seal is call'd a Conveyance or making over of fuch an Eftate, and it is really fo; not the delivery of mere wax and parchment, but the conveyance of a real Eftate; 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 themfelves 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 Baptifm Chriftians are faid to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost, Heb. 6. And by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we are faid to communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Chrift which was broken, and of his Bloud which was fhed for us, that is, of the real benefits of his death and paffion. And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of bleffing which we blefs, is it not the communion of the bloud of Chrift the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Chrift? But ftill it is bread, and he ftill calls it fo 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 Chriftians are fubftantially changed first into Bread, and then into the natural Body of Christ by their participation of the Sacrament, because they are faid thereby to be one bread and one body. And the fame Apostle in the next chapter, after he had fpoken of the confecration of the Elements ftill calls them the bread and the Cup, in three verfes together, As often as ye eat this bread and drink this Cup, v. 26.


[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, v. 27. But let a man examine himSelf, and fo let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup, v. 28. And our Saviour himself when he had faid, this is my bloud of the new Teftament, immediately adds, * but I say unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this * Matth. 26. fruit of the Vine, untill I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom, that is, not till after his refurrection, 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 Difciples. But that which I obferve from our Saviour's words is, that after the confecration of the Cup and the delivering of it to his Difciples to drink of it, he tells them that he would thenceforth drink no more of the 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 Sa


Befides, if we confider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Paffion, it is impoffible these words fhould be understood literally of the natural body and bloud of Chrift; because it was his body broken and his bloud fhed which he gave to his Difciples, which if we understand literally of his natural body broken and his bloud fhed, then thefe words, this is my body which is broken, and this is my bloud which is fhed, could not be true, becaufe his Body was then whole and unbroken, and his bloud not then fhed; nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice (as they affirm this Sacrament to be) unless they will fay that propitiation was made before Chrift fuffer'd: And it is likewife impoffible that the Difciples fhould understand thefe words literally, because they not onely plainly faw B 2 that

« PreviousContinue »