« PreviousContinue »
LONDON, Printed by M. Flesker, for Brabazon Aylmer, at the three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill: And William Rogers, at the Sun, over against St. Dunstans Church in
AGAINST Oncerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supo per, one of the two great positive Institutions of the Christian Religion, there are two main Points of difference between Vs
and the Church of Rome. One, about the Doctrinc of Transubfiantiation, in which they think, but are not certain, that they have the Scripture and about the administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds; in which we are sure that we have the Scripture and our Saviour's Institution on our side; and that so plainly, that our Adversaries themselves do not deny it.
Of the first of these I shall now treat, and endeavour to Thew against the Church of Rome, That in this Sacrament there is no fubftantial change made of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Body and
Bloud of Christ ; that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary, and suffered upon the Cross ; for so they explain that hard word Transubstantiation. · Before I engage in this Argument, I cannot but obferve what an unreasonable task we are put upon, by the bold confidence of our Adversaries, to dispute a matter of Sense ; which is one of those things about which Aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute.
It might well seem strange if any man should write a Book, to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant, and that a Musket-Bullet is not a Pike : It is every whit as hard a case, to be put to maintain by a long Difcourse, that what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread, and not the Body of a man; and what we fee and taste to be Wine is Wine and not Bloud : And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof, I do not see why any man, that hath confidence enough to do so, may not'deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is, or affirm any thing to be what all the World sees it is not; and this without all possibility of being farther confuted. So that the business of Transubstantiation is not a controversie of Scripture against Scripture, or of Reason against Reason, but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture, and all the Senfe and Reason of Mankind.
It is a most Self-evident Falsehood; and there is no Doctrine or Proposition in the World that is of it felf more evidently true, thanTransubstantiation is evidently false: And yet if it were possible to be true, it would "be the most ill-natur'd and pernicious truth' in the 'World, because it would suffer nothing else to be true; it is like the Roman-Catholique. Cliurch, which will needs be the whole Christian Church, and will allow