а

no other Society of Christians to be any part of it :
So Traxsubstantiation, if it be true at all, it is all truth;
for it cannot be true unlefs our Senses and the Senses
of all mankind be deceived about their proper objeets;
and if this be true and certain, then nothing else can
be fo; for if we be not certain of what we see, we can
be certain of nothing.

And yet notwithstanding all this, there is 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 pro-
ceed in this plain method.
-- I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and rea-
fons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine.

* I. I shall produce our Objeétions against it. And if
I can fhew that there is no tolerable ground for it, and
that there are invincible Objections against it, then eve-
rý man is not onely in reason excused from believing this
Doctrine, but hath great cause to believe the contrary.

I

FIRST, I will consider the pretended grounds I. and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine. Which must be one or more of these five. Either ift. The Authority of Seripture. Or aly. 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 4!. The absolute
necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to
the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sa-
crament. Or sly. To magnify the power of the Priest
in being able to work so great a Miracle.
ift

. 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 fall 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 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 Taid : 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 maa my for the remision of Sins. Where first, the Cup is put for 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

Qu. 75.art.2.

Q. s.

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

But that there is no necessity to understand our Sa-
viour'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 Contro-
verfie. (a) Bellarmine, (b) Suarez and (c) Vasquez (a) de Euch.
do acknowledge Scotus the great Schoolman to have 3: C. 23;
said that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved Qu.75. Se&t.2.

(b)inz.dif.49. from Scripture: And Bellarmine grants this not to be in 3. part.

difp. 180. improbable; and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge (d) Durandus to have said as much. (e) Ocham, another c. 15. famous Schoolman, says exprelly, that the Doctrine

(d) in Sent.

1.4. dift. II. which holds the fubstance of the Bread and Wine to re. qu. I. n. 15. main after consecration is neither repugnant to Reafon ) in 4, Sent. nor to Scripture. (f) Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Quodl.4.2.3. Cambray says plainly, that the Doctrine of the Substance

(f) in 4. Sent.

l. 6. Art. 2o... of Bread and Wine remaining after Confecration is more cafe and free from absurdity, more rational, and no ways repugnant to the authority of Scripture ; nay more, that for the other Doctrine, vizi of Transubstantiation, there is no evidence in Scripture. (g) Gabriel Biel, Mig. Lel.40.

(8) in canon another

great

Schoolman and Divine of their Church, freely declares, that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the Scriptures, a man may believe that the subfrance of Bread and Wire doth remain after Confecration: and therefore he refolves the belief of Transubstantiation into some other Revelation, besides Scripture, which he supposeth the Church had about it. ' Cardinal (h) Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where (h) in Aquino express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ; 21.5.

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 max to understand these words of

Chrift

Christ, this is my body, in a proper and not a metapha
rical sense ; but the Church having understood them in
a preper sense they are to be so explained ;Which words

in the Roman Edition of Gajetanare expunged by order (1) Ægid. Co. of Pope (i) Pius V. Cardinal (k) Contarénus, vandi () nink. de Sa- Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Wricram, 275, ters that Church ever had, reckon this Doctrine a

,
(k) de Samong those which are nat so, exprelly found in Scripture.
cram. 1.2.6.3: I will add but one more of great authority ins the
(1) Lọc. Theo-
log.13.c. 3. Church, and a reputed Martyr, (m) Fisher Billrop of
(m) contra Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words
captiv. Baby-
kon. c. 10.n.2. of the Institution there is not, one word from whence the

true presence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in our Máss
can be proved : So that we need not much contend
that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scrip
ture, 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 Tranfubftantiation, Tam
fure 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 faid to be Christ's body; and the Rock which fol.
lowed 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 ex-
pressions in Scripture every man understands in a figu-
rative, and not in a strictly literal and absurd sense.
And it is very well known, that in the Hebrew Lan-
guage things are commonly said to be that which they
do lignify and represent; and there is not in that Lan-
guage a more proper and usual way of expressing a

thing

thing to signifie so and so, than to say that it is fo 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 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 Tranfubftantiation being grounded upon these words of our Saviour, this is my body, would upon rea

, ding 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 Ęzra's time, as(n) Juftin Martyr tells us, TĒTO (m) Dialog

.

, n To trágia ow the juân xed å nezapurin nuôv, this p. 297. Edit.

cum Tryph. πάχα ο ημών και η καρυγή Pallover is our Saviour and our refuge : not that they Paris. 1639. believed the Paschal Lamb to be fubitantially changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt, or into the Mefias 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 pafled over and spared; and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Mesias,

B.

the