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 such an Estate, 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 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 Baptifm Chriftians are faid to be made partakers of the Holy Ghoft, Heb. 6. 4. 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 fpeaks of this Sacrament, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The cup of blessing 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 Christ? 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 Christians are substantially 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 Apoftle 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.

Whosoever

you in my 29.

Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, v 27. But let a man examine himfelf, 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 1 Jay unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this + Matth. 26. fruit of the Vine, untill I drink it new with you 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 Scriptare tells us he did eat and drink with his Difciples. 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 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

crament.

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 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 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 these words literally, because they not onely plainly faw

B 2

that

that what he gave them was Bread and Wine, but they faw likewife 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 Shed, because they faw him alive at that very time and beheld his body whole and unpierc'd; and therefore they could not understand thefe words literally: If they had, can we imagine that the Difciples, who upon all other occafions were fo full of queftions and objections, should make no difficulty of this matter? nor fo much as ask our Saviour, how can these things be that they should not tell him, we fee this to be Bread and that to be Wine, and we fee 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 confider things, how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour, this is my body, and this is my bloud, in the fense of Tranfubftantiation; nay on the contrary, that there is very great reason and an evident neceffity to understand them otherwise. I proceed to fhew,

zly. That this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual belief of the Chriftian 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 manifeft the groundlesness of this pretence, I fhall, 1. fhew by plain teftimony of the Fathers in feveral Ages, that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Chriftian Church. 2. I fhall fhew the time and occafion of its coming in, and by what degrees it grew up and was establifh'd in the Roman Church. 3. I thall answer their great pretended Demonftration that this always was and must have been

been the conftant belief of the Chriftian Church. I. I fhall fhew by plain Teftimonies of the Fathers in feveral Ages, for above five hundred years after Christ that this Doctrine was not the belief of the ancient Chriftian Church. I deny not but that the Fathers do, and that with great reafon, very much magnify the wonderfull myftery and efficacy of his Sacra ment, and frequently speak of a great Supernatural change made by the divine benediction; which we alfo readily acknowledge. They fay indeed, that the Elements of Bread and Wine do by the divine bleffing become to us the Body and Bloud of Chrift: But they likewise say that the names of the things fignified are given to the Signs; that the Bread and Wine do ftill remain in their proper nature and substance, and that they are turn'd into the substance of our Bodies; that the Body of Chrift in the Sacrament is not his natural Body, but the fign 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 flesh of the Son of man and drinking his bloud literally all which are directly oppofite to the Doctrine. of Tranfubftantiation and utterly inconfiftent with it. I will felect but fome few Teftimonies of many which I might bring to this purpose.

*

:

2

edit. Parif.

1636.

I begin with Justin Martyr, who fays exprefsly, that our bloud and Flesh are nourished by the conver-Apol.2.p.98.. fion of that food which we receive in the Eucharift: But that cannot be the natural body and bloud of Christ, for no man will fay that that is converted into the nourishment of our bodies.

*

The Second is * Irenæus, who fpeaking of this Sa- lib. 4.c.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) confifting of

two

* lib. 5. c. 2.

two things, the one earthy, the other heavenly. He fays it is no longer common bread, but after invocation or confecration it becomes the Sacrament, that is, bread fanctified, confifting of two things an earthly and a heavenly; the earthly thing is bread, and the heavenly is the divine bleffing which by the invocation or confecration is added to it. And * elsewhere he hath this paffage, 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 Eucharift of the bloud and body of Chrift, of which the fubftance of our flesh is increafed 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 Chrift. There is another remarkable Teftimony of Ireneus, which though it be not now extant in those works of his which remain, yet hath *Comment. in been preferv'd by * Oecumenius, and it is this; when I, Pet. c. 3. (fays he) the Greeks had taken fome Servants, of the Chriftian Catechumeni (that is, fuch as had not been admitted to the Sacrament) and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them fome of the fecrets of the Chriftians, thefe Servants having nothing to say that might gratify thofe who offered violence to them, except onely that they had heard from their Mafters that the divine Communion was the bloud and body of Chrift, they thinking that it was really bloud and flesh, declar'd as much to those that questioned them. The Greeks taking this as if it were really done by the Chriftians, difcovered it to others of the Greeks; who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confefs it. To whom Blandina boldly answered, How would they endure to do this, who by way of exercife (or abstinence) do not eat that flesh which may lawfully be eaten? By which it appears that this which they would have

charg'd