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

And yet notwithstanding all this, there is a Comapany of men in the World lo 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 proceed in this plain method.

I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine.

II. I shall produce our Obje&tions against it. And if I can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it, and that there are invincible Objections against it, then every man is not onely in reason excused from believing this Doctrine,but hath great cause to believethe contrary.

I

FIRST, I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrine. Which must be one or more.of these five. Either ist. The Authority of Scripture. Or 2ly. 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 4l. The absolute necessity of fuch a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sa. crament. Or gly. 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 us nay body. Now toshew the insufficiency of this pretence, I shall endeavour to make good these two things.

1. That there is no necellity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Tranfubftantiat ion.

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 reafons. Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture, which I think no man ever yet said: 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 exhibite 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 ftri&ly and literally. When he gave the Cup he said, This Cuy is the new Testament in my bloud, which is phed for yoa and for many for the remifsion 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 signify a substantial change, it is not of the Wine but of the Cop; 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

C. 15.

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

But that there is no necessity to understand our Sa-
viour's words in the sense of Tranfubftantiation, I will i. 3. C.23.

(2) de Ench. take the plain concession of a great number of the most (binz.díj:49 learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Contro- inz. part: versie. (a) Bellarmine, (b) Suazer and (c) Vasquez difp. 180. do acknowledge Scotus the great Schoolman to have

lu. 75. art.2. said that this Doctrine cannot be evidently proved from Scripture : And Bellarmire grants this not to be a) din Sent improbable; and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge (d) 21.n.is. Durandus to have said as much.”(@) Ocham , another in 4.Sent. famous Schoolman, says exprelly, that the Doctrine & sib

Quodl.4.2.3. which holds the substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after confecration is neither repugnant to Reason (1) in 4. Sent. nor to Scripture. (f)* Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of 2.6. art. 2. Cambray says plainly, that the Doctrine of the Substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Confecration is more ease and free from absurdity, more rational, and no ways repugnant to the authority of Scripture ; nay more, that for the other Doctrine, viz. of Tranfubftantiation , (8) in canon.

Mil.Le&.40 there is no evidence in Scripture. (8) Gabriel Biel, another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church, freely declares, that as to any thing expressd in the Caron of the Scriptures, a man may believe that the subStance of Bread and Wine dotb remain after Confecration : and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantia. tion into fome other Revelation , besides Scripture, which he supposeth the Church had about it. Cardi

(h) in Aquin. nal (h) Cajetan confesleth that the Gospel doth no where 3.part.qu.95 express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Chrift; that we have this from the authority of the Church: nay, he goes farther, , that there w nothing in the Gospel which enforcetb any man to understand these words of

Christ

cram. l. 75.

cram.l. 2.c.3.

Chrift, this is my body, in a proper and not a metaphorical sense ; but the Church having understood them in a proper sense they are to be so explained: Which words

in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order (!) Ægid.Co. of Pope (i) Pius V. Cardinal (k) Cortarenus; and (1) nink. de Sa. Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Wriart. 1. n. 13. ters that Church ever had, reckon this Doctrine a(k) de sa

mong

those which are not so exprefly found in Scripture. (1) Loc. Theo I will add but one more, of great authority in the 203. 1. 3.6. 3. Church, and a reputed Martyr, (m) Fisher Bishop of captiv . Baby

. Rochester who ingenuously confesleth that in the words lon.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 Mass can be proved : So that we need not much contend that this Doctrine hath no certain foundation in Scripture, 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 Transubstantiation, I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise. Whether we consider 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 so likewise where the Church is said to be Christ's body; and the , Rock which followed 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 expreslions in Scripture every man understands in a figurative, and not in a strictly literal and absurd sense. And it is very well known, that in the Hebrew Language 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 exprelling a

thing to signify so and so, than to say that it is so 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 so Pharaoh understood him, and so would
any man of sense understand the like expressions; nor
do I beleive that any sensible man, who had never
heard of Transubstantiation 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 Bo-
dy, this Cup fignifies 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 him-
self 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 Ezra's time, as (n) Justin Martyr tells us,

(n) Dialog

cum Tryph. To trágee ó owtie woud ji ya Tepesi nukr, this p. 299. Édit. Passover is our Saviour and our refuge : not that they Paril

. 1639. believed the Paschal Lamb to be substantially changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt, or into the Mellias 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 Naying 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

TETO