of it: no other Society of Chriftians to be any part And yet notwithstanding all this, there is a Company of men in the World fo abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delufion as in good earnest to believe this grofs and palpable Errour, and to impofe the belief of it upon the Christian World under no less penalties than of temporal death and Eternal damnation. And therefore to undeceive, if poffible, these deluded Souls, it will be neceflary to examine the pretended grounds of fo falfe a Doctrine, and to lay open the monstrous abfurdity of it. And in the handling of this Argument, I shall proceed in this plain method. I. I fhall confider the pretended grounds and reafons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine. 2 II. I fhall produce our Objections against it. And if I can fhew that there is no tolerable ground for it, and that there are invincible Objections against it, then every man is not onely in reafon excused from believing this Doctrine, but hath great caufe to believe the contrary. FIRST, I will confider the pretended grounds I. and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine. Which must be one or more of thefe five. Either ift. The Authority of Scripture. 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 fenfe. Or 3ly. The authority of the prefent Church to make and declare declare new Articles of Faith. Or 4y. The abfolute neceffity of fuch a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament. Or sly. To magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work fo great a Miracle. ft. They pretend for this Doctrine the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour, This is my body. Now to fhew the infufficiency of this pretence, I fhall endeavour to make good these two things. 1. That there is no neceffity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Tranfubftantiation. 2. That there is a great deal of reafon to understand them otherwise. First, That there is no neceffity to understand those words of our Saviour in the fenfe of Tranfubftantiation. If there be any, it must be from one of these two reafons. Either because there are no figurative expreffions in Scripture, which I think no man ever yet faid: or elfe, because a Sacrament admits of no figures; which would be very abfurd for any man to fay, fince it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to reprefent and exhibit fome invifible grace and benefit by an outward fign and figure: And especially fince it cannot be denied, but that in the inftitution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative expreffions and feveral words which cannot be taken ftrictly and literally. When he gave the Cup he faid, This Cup is the new Teftament in my bloud, which is fhed for you and for many for the remiffion of Sins. Where firft, the Cup is put for Wine contained in the Cup; or elfe if the words be literally taken, fo as to fignifie 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 Teftament or new Covenant in his bloud. Befides, that his bloud is faid then then to be fhed, and his body to be broken, which was not till his Paffion, which followed the Inftitution and first celebration of this Sacrament. ì. But that there is no neceffity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense 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. c. 23. (b)inz.dif.49. faid that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved Q.75.set.2. from Scripture: And Bellarmine grants this not to be in 3. part. difp. 180. improbable; and Suarez and Vafquez acknowledge (d) Q.75.art.2. 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. Qu. 1. n. 15. main after confecration is neither repugnant to Reafon (c) 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. 2.5. 6. 2.6. art. 2.... (g).in canon. there is no evidence in Scripture. (g) Gabriel Biel, another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church, Chrift art. I. 1 art. 1. n. 13. Christ, this is my body, in a proper and not a metapho rical fenfe; but the Church having understood them in a proper fenfe they are to be fo explained; Which words in the Roman Edition of Gajetamare expunged by order (1) Agid. Co. of Pope (i) Pius V. Cardinal (k) Contarénus,and (1) mink de Sa- Melchior Canus one of the best and moft judicious Wricram. 2.75 ters that Church ever had, reckon this Doctrine a (k) de Sa- mong those which are not fo exprefly found in Scripture. cram. 1.2.c.3. I will add but one more, of great, authority ins the (1) Loc. TheoLog.4.3.c.3. Church, and a reputed Martyr, (m) Fiber Billtop of (m) contra Rochester who ingenuously confeffeth that in the words captiv. Babyof the Institution there is not one word from whence the true prefence of the flesh and bloud of Chrift 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. lon. c. 10.n.2. Secondly, If there be no neceffity of understanding our Saviour's words in the fenfe of Tranfubftantiation, Tam fure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwife. 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 ftrictly 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 ufual way of expreffing a thing thing to fignifie fo and fo, than to say 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 seven 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 thefe words of our Saviour, this is my body, would upon reading the institution 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 gnifies my Bo Bread dy, 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. Or whether we compare thefe words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Paffover ufed by the Jews from Ezra's time, as (n) Justin Martyr tells us, Toro (n) Dialog. τὸ πάχα ὁ σωτὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ καταφυγὴ ἡμῶν, this Paffover is our Saviour and our refuge: not that they Parif. 1639. believed the Pafchal Lamb to be fubftantially changed 量 either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt, or into the Mefas 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, B. the cum Tryph. P. 297. Edit. |