Page images
[ocr errors]

the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the world. in And nothing is more common in all Languages than to give the name of the thing rignified 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 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. And by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we are faid to communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken, and of his Bloud which was fhed 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 blefing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blond of Chrift? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? But ftill it is bread, and he still calls it for 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 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.


[ocr errors]


Whosoever fall eat this bread and drink this cup of the
Lord unworthily,: V.27, But let a man examine him.
felf, 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,
* but I say unto you, I will not benceforth drink of this

* Matth. 26.
fruit of the Vine, untill I drink it new with you in my 29
Father's Kingdom, that is, not till after his resurrecti-
On, which was the first ftep of his exaltation into the
Kingdom given him by his father, wlien the Scrip-
ture tells us he did eat and drink with his Disciples.
But that which I observe from our Saviour's words is,
that after the confecration 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 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-

Besides, if we confider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion, it is impossible thefe words fhould be understood literally of the natural body and bloud of Christ; because it was his body broken and his blowd 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 onely plainly saw


[ocr errors]

B 2

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

that wliat 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 med, 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 fee 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 otherwife. i I proceed to fhew,

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 Mall

, 1. Thew 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.


I shall anfwer their great pretended Demonstration that this always was and must have


been the conftant belief of the Chiftian Churcli.

1. I shall Niew 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 magnify 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 fless 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 few Testimonies of many

which I might bring to this purpose. I begin with Justin Martyr, who says expresly, that *our bloud and Flesh are nourished by the conver

* Apol.2.p.58. fion of that food which we receive in the Eucharist: Edit. Parić. But that cannot be the natural body and bloud of 1636. Christ, for no man will say that that is converted into the nourishment of our bodies.

The Second is * Irenæus, who speaking of this Sa- Lib.4.6.34. crament says, that the bread which is from the earth receiving the divine invocation is now no longer common bread, but the Eucharift (or Sacrament ) consisting of



two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly. He fays it is no longer common bread, but after invocation or consecration it becomes the Sacrament, that is, bread fanctified, consisting of two things an earthly and a heavenly; the earthly thing is bread, and the

heavenly is the divine blessing which by the invoca* lib. s. c. 2. tion or consecration is added to it. And * elsewere 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 fuba stance of our flesh is increased and confifts : 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 Irenæus, which though it be not now

extant in those works of his which remain, yet hath * Comment. in been preserv'd by * Oecumenius, and it is this; when 1 Pet. Ci 3. ' ( says he) the Greeks had taken fome Servants, of the

Christian Catechumeni (that is, such as had not been admitted to the Sacrament) and afterwards urged them by violence to tell tbem fome of the secrets of the line ans, these Servants having nothing to say that might gratify those who offered violence to them, except onely 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 fles, 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 pat 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 ihat flesh which may lawfully be eaten? By which it appears that this which they would have


« PreviousContinue »