no other Society of Chriftians to be any part of it: So Tranfubftantiation, if it be true at all, it is all truth; for it cannot be true unless our Senfes and the Senses of all mankind be deceived about their proper objects; and if this be true and certain, then nothing else can be fo; for if we be not certain of what we fee, we can be certain of nothing.

And yet notwithstanding all this, there is a Company of men in the World to 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 neceffary 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.

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 excufed from believing this Doctrine,but hath great cause 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 these five. Either ift. The Authority of Scripture. Or 2ly. The perpetual belief of this Doctrine in the Chriftian 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 5ly. To magnify the power of the Priest in being able to work fo 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 fhew the infufficiency of this pretence, I shall endeavour to make good these two things.

1. That there is no neceflity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the fenfe of Tranfubftan tiation.

2. That there is a great deal of reason to underftand 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 represent and exhibite fome invisible grace and benefit by an outward fign and figure: And efpecially 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, so as to fignify a substantial change, it is not of the Wine but of the Cap; and that, not into the bloud of Chrift but into the new Teftament or new Covenant in his bloud. Besides, that his bloud is faid

then

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

Qu.75.Se&.2.

c. 15.

But that there is no neceffity to understand our Saviour's words in the fenfe of Tranfubftantiation, I will 43.c.23. (a) de Euch. take the plain conceffion of a great number of the most (b)in3.dif.49. learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Contro- () in 3. part. verfic. (a) Bellarmine, (b) Suazer and (c) Vafquez difp. 180. do acknowledge Scotus the great Schoolman to have Qx. 75.art.2. faid that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture: And Bellarmine grants this not to be (d) in Sent. improbable; and Suarez and Vafquez acknowledge (d) 2.1.. 15. 1.4. dift. 11. Durandus to have faid as much. (e) Ocham, another () in 4-Sent. famous Schoolman, fays exprefly, that the Doctrine &. 5. 6. Quodl.4.2.3. which holds the fubftance of the Bread and Wine to remain after confecration is neither repugnant to Reafon (1) in 4.Sent. nor to Scripture. (f) Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of 6. art. 2. Cambray fays plainly, that the Doctrine of the Substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Confecration is more cafe 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, (8) in canon. there is no evidence in Scripture. (g) Gabriel Biel, Miff.Le&.40. 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 fubStance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Confecration : and therefore he refolves the belief of Tranfubftantiation into fome other Revelation, befides Scripture, which he supposeth the Church had about it. Cardi- (h) in Aquin. nal (h) Cajetan confefleth that the Gospel doth no where 3.part. Qu.75 exprefs that the Bread is changed into the Body of Chrift; art. 1. 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

Chrift

Chrift, 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 Cajetan are expunged by order (i) Egid.Co- of Pope (i) Pius V. Cardinal (k) Contarenus, and (1) nink de Sa Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Wriart. 1.. 13. ters that Church ever had, reckon this Doctrine a(k) de Samong those which are not fo exprefly found in Scripture. (1) Loc. Theo I will add but one more, of great authority in the Log. 1. 3. c. 3. Church, and a reputed Martyr, (m) Fisher Bishop of (m) contra captiv. Baby- Rochefter who ingenuously confeffeth that in the words Lon.c. 1o.n.2. of the Inftitution there is not one word from whence the

cram. Q. 75.

cram.l.2.c.3.

true prefence of the flesh and bloud of Christ in our Mass 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 Adversaries themselves.

Secondly, If there be no neceffity of understanding our Saviour's words in the fenfe of Tranfubftantiation, I am fure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise. Whether we confider the like expressions 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 said, 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 strictly, 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 gnify and reprefent; and there is not in that Language a more proper and ufual way of exprefling a

thing

thing to fignify fo and fo, than to say that it is so and
fo. Thus Jofeph expounding Pharaoh's dream to him,
Gen. 4I. 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 seven years of
plenty ;
and fo Pharaoh understood him, and fo would
any man of sense understand the like expreffions; nor
do I beleive that any fenfible 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 fuch thing to be meant by our
Saviour in those words; but would have understood
his meaning to have been, this Bread fignifies my Bo-
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 man's
mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold
himself in his hand, and give away himself from him-
self with his own hands.

any

TOTO

(n) Dialog. cum Tryph.

Or whether we compare these words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Paffover used by the Jews from Ezra's time, as (n) Justin Martyr tells us, τὸ πάχα ὁ σωτὴς ἡμῶν καὶ ἡ καταφυγὴ ἡμῶν, this p.399. Edit. i Paffover is our Saviour and our refuge: not that they Parif. 1639. believed the Pafchal Lamb to be fubftantially changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt, or into the Meffias 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 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, B

the