Page images

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

But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the fense 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) Bellarmine, (b) Suarez and (c) Vasquez (a) de Eucki do acknowledge Scotus the great Schoolman to have 3: 6:23; faid that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved Qu.75.Se&t.2.. from Scripture: And Bellarmine grants this not to be in 3. Parto. improbable; and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge (d) Qu.75. art.2.. Durandus to have said as much. (e) Ocham, another c. 15. famous Schoolman, says expresly, that the Doctrine (4) im Sent. which holds the substance of the Bread and Wine to re- &. 1. n. 15. main after confecration is neither repugnant to Reasoningsento nor to Scripture. (f) Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Quodil.4. l.3 Cambray says plainly, that the Doctrine of the Substance (F) in 4. Sent.

l. 6. art. 2. of Bread and Wine remaining after Confecration 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) Gabriel Biel, () in canon. another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church, Milj. Lett.40.. freely declares, that as to any thing exprefs'd in the Canon of the Scriptures, a man may believe that the subStance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Confecration: and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation into fome other Revelation, besides Scripture, which he supposeth the Church had about it. Cardinal (h) Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where (h) in Aquin: . express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ; 3.part. Qu.750 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.

Christ, this is my body, in a proper and not 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 (1. Ægid.Co. of Pope (i) Pius V. Cardinal (k) Contarenus, and (I) nink. de Sa. Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Wriart. 1. n. 13. ters that Church ever had, reckon this Doctrine a(k). de Sa: mong those which are not so expresly found in Scripturė. (1) Loc. Theó: I will add but one more, of great authority in the 193. 1. 3. c. 3. Church, and a reputed Martyr, (m) Fisher Bishop of captiv. Baby. Rochester who ingenuously confesieth that in the words Lon. c. 10.4.2. of the Institution 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 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 cominonly said to be that which they do signify and represent ; and there is not in that Language a more proper and usual way of expressing a

thing to signifie fo and so, than to say that it is so and fo. 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 fo 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 fignifies 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 himfelf 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 (~) Fustin Martyr tells us, Tšto (n) Dialog. το πάχα και σωτήρ ημών και η καταφυγή ημών, this

cum Tryph. Palover is our Saviour and our refuge : not that they París. 1639. believed the Pafchal Lamb to be substantially changed either into God their Saviour who dclivered 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 first-born were passed over and spared; and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Meffias,




p. 297. Edit,


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 calld a Conveyance or making over of such an Estate, and it is really fo; 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. by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we are said to communicatę 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, i 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 Chrift? 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 fame Apostle in the next chapter, after he had spoken of the confecration 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 kimself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of thát cup, v. 28. And our Saviour himself when he had said, this is my bloud of the new Testament, 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 my Father's Kingdom, that is, noe 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 Cúp and the delivering of it to his Disciples 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 Sacrament.

Besides, if we consider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion, it is impossible these words fhould be understood litcrally 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 thefe words, this is my body which is broken, and this is my bloud which is bed, could not be true, because his Body was then whole and unbroken, and his bloud nor 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 onely plainly saw

B 2


« PreviousContinue »