<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>2014-07-02</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Alexis Jakobson</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>*Proofed title page(s).
*Reviewed structure.
*Checked division-marking material at heads and feet of divisions (HEADS, CLOSER, OPENER, ARGUMENT, EPIGRAPH, SIGNED, BYLINE, etc.).
*Added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate.
*Checked for N=""s.
*Checked ^s.
*Checked placement and completeness of PBs.
*Checked for foreign, damage and missing-page GAPs, PROBLEMs, #, --.
*Checked for LBs, startqs / endqs, q;s, ABBRs, LETTERs and Qs.
*Checked for FIGUREs and decorated initials.
*Checked proofsheets and made corrections found there.
*Corrected <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">s etc.
*Converted <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">s to GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="[vendor name]".
*Revalidated.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="B18418">
<STC T="W">C72B</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">[ocm]10170737</BIBNO>
<VID>204590</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1" MS="y">
<P>A SHORT DISCOURSE AGAINST TRANSUBSTANTIATION: OR, AN An&s;wer to the Ordinary Que&s;tion, <HI>Whe|ther a man may be &s;aved in the Ro|man Catholick Religion?</HI></P>
<P>By the Reduction of it to another, <HI>Whether one can be &s;aved,</HI> who <HI>Apo&s;tatizing</HI> from a <HI>true Religion, joineth him&s;elf with the gro&s;&s;e&s;t Idolaters?</HI></P>
<P>Where the Evidence again&s;t <HI>Tran&s;ub|&s;tantiation,</HI> from <HI>Revelation, Rea&s;on,</HI> and <HI>Sen&s;e,</HI> is repeated and improved, in two <HI>Sermons</HI> on <HI>Mat.</HI> 26.26.</P>
<P>By <HI>J. C.</HI> D. D.</P>
<Q>Nulli dubium e&s;&s;e pote&s;t, &s;i nihil in Euchari&s;ti&acirc; praeter pa|nem &s;it, quin tota Eccle&s;ia.&mdash;Idololatra <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">uerit, ac proinde quotquot ante nos hoc Sacramentum adorave|runt, omnes ad unum e&s;&s;e damnatos; nam creaturam panis adoraverunt Creatoris loco. <BIBL><HI>Roffen&s;is contra Oecolamp. lib. 1. cap. 2.</HI></BIBL></Q>
<Q><BIBL><HI>1 Cor. 6.9.</HI></BIBL> Know ye not that the unrighteous &s;hall not inherit the Kingdom of God,&mdash;neither Idolaters, nor Adulterers.</Q>
<Q><BIBL><HI>Rev. 21.8.</HI></BIBL> Idolaters and all lyars &s;hall have their part in the Lake which burns with fire and brim&s;tone.</Q>
<P><HI>London,</HI> Printed for <HI>Tho. Parkhur&s;t,</HI> 1675.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="dedication">
<PB REF="2">
<PB REF="2">
<HEAD>To his highly Honoured Friend, <HI>John Haws</HI> Doctor of Phy&s;ick.</HEAD>
<P>YO&V; I think <HI>(Sir)</HI> know me too well, to judg that by the Publication of the&s;e two Sermons I de&s;ign any thing of name to my &s;elf, or thought to &s;upply any vacuity in the World. I am &s;o well acquainted with Books as to know there are Treati&s;es enough in the World on this Argument, and that nothing new can be &s;aid in it: What can be &s;aid after &s;o many learned holy Men, and many of them di&s;puting for their lives? Yet the mo&s;t of what they have &s;aid is either in <HI>Latin,</HI> which all understand not, or in great <HI>Volumns</HI> which every Pur&s;e will not reach, and for the mo&s;t part mixed with other Heterogeneous Arguments.</P>
<P>The <HI>Real Pre&s;ence</HI> not of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI>
<PB REF="3"> only, but the Body and Blood of <HI>Chri&s;t</HI> in the Sacrament is now made a Theam for every <HI>Coffee-hou&s;e.</HI> I thought tho&s;e that under|&s;tood not <HI>Latin,</HI> nor how to take an Argument out of a long Di&s;pute, nor could lay out four or five Shillings, might po&s;&s;ibly &s;pare Four-pence or Six pence for a little <HI>Vade mecum</HI> in the ca&s;e. But, Sir, this was not all. About a year and a half &s;ince a stran|ger came to me, but &s;uch a one who&s;e Parents, Family, and Education I very well knew to be as aver&s;e as is imaginable to <HI>Popery,</HI> (when he had once told me what he was, to be &s;a|tisfied in this Que&s;tion, <HI>Whether one might not be &s;aved in the Ro|mi&s;h Catholick Religion?</HI> Being &s;tartled at the fruit of a Branch from &s;uch a Root, I craved leave before I directly &s;pake to his Que&s;tion, to in|treat him to tell me, What <HI>temptation</HI> he could have to &s;uch a thought? He be|gan the u&s;ual harangue of the <HI>Anti|quity and Unity of that Religion.</HI> I
<PB REF="3"> askt him if he had been bred a Schollar or had travelled? He denying both; I quickly &s;top this mouth as to tho&s;e pleas, telling him they were both fal&s;e, but if true, they could be to him no Argument, becau&s;e he could have no evidence of them; and therefore he did but trifle with me. I told him we were upon a Que|&s;tion concerning Eternal Salvation, and it became him to be &s;erious. He then told me, He could never go to Meetings with his friends, but was per&s;waded of the truth of the <HI>Arminian points,</HI> and found that the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> better agreed with them than the Doctrines of the Church of <HI>England.</HI> I told him, All of that Church embraced them not, though in that I thought he &s;pake truth. This, Sir, made me remember, the <HI>Soveraign Drug,</HI> the <HI>Father Rector</HI> long &s;ince told us they had planted in <HI>England,</HI> (the vertue of it, it &s;eems, was to purge us of the Prote&s;tant Religion). Coming to the Que&s;tion I freely told him, <HI>If he un|der&s;tood his Que&s;tion of one who had been bred in a knowledg of the Scrip|tures,
<PB REF="4"> and under the free Preaching of the Go&s;pel, and apo&s;tatized to Popery, my opinion was, Such a one, &s;o living and dying, could not be &s;aved.</HI> He, as I hear &s;ince, re&s;olved to venture it, I fore|&s;aw I &s;hould be judged <HI>Durus pater A|po&s;tatarum,</HI> and therefore thought my &s;elf a little concerned to ju&s;tifie my &s;elf as to that &s;entence. If Apo&s;tatizers to gro&s;s Idolaters &s;o dying cannot be &s;aved, &s;urely they cannot. This gave the fir&s;t ri&s;e to my thoughts of Printing the&s;e popular Di&s;cour&s;es, Preached more than a year and half &s;ince. That the World &s;aw them no &s;ooner is none of my fault, though it will po&s;&s;ibly be a ju&s;t admiration to you Sir, why (e&s;pecially in &s;uch a time) the publication &s;hould be hindred, by any who would be thought the only enemies to Popery. I will a&s;&s;ure you, Sir, there is not a line altered, no not a word from what they were when fir&s;t offered for the Pre&s;s. Be&s;ides, Sir, you know what a cry is made as if <HI>Non-con.</HI> were rather fa|vourers of <HI>Popery,</HI> than adver&s;aries t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> it, &amp; none of them would either preach
<PB REF="4"> or write again&s;t it. It is not ingenuous to hold their hands, and then to cry they will not write. At length it breaks through to help to &s;top that clamour. You Sir, are &s;o well ver&s;ed in things of Reli|gion, as to know, that there is no ground to &s;u&s;pect them of favouring <HI>Popery,</HI> who are fixed in the&s;e Doctrines.</P>
<P N="1"><HI>1.</HI> That every private Chri&s;tian hath a judgment of private pra<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">ical di&s;cre|tion, and cannot do ought which his Con|&s;cience tells him is &s;in, nor believe as the Church believeth, meerly becau&s;e it &s;o be|lieves.</P>
<P N="2"><HI>2.</HI> That our Ju&s;tification before God is through the Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t reckoned to us for Righteou&s;ne&s;s, not for any works of our own, either done be|fore or after Regeneration.</P>
<P N="3"><HI>3.</HI> That justifying Faith is not a bare a&s;&s;ent to a Propo&s;ition, but a receiving Chri&s;t as Prie&s;t, Prophet and King, and a &s;iducial adherence to him, &amp; him only.</P>
<P N="4"><HI>4.</HI> That though there be a <HI>Real Pre|&s;ence of Chri&s;t in the Sacrament, yet there is no Real Pre&s;ence</HI> of the <HI>Fle&s;h</HI>
<PB REF="5"> and <HI>Blood</HI> of Chri&s;t there, further than as in the Signs. The&s;e things, Sir, you know, <HI>Non-con.</HI> generally hold. When the&s;e things, Sir, had encouraged me to publi&s;h the&s;e Sermons, I &s;aw another ad|vantage I might have, by Entituling you to them, once in my life to pre&s;cribe to him who hath &s;o often pre&s;cribed to me and mine; not that Sir, I think you need any &s;uch antidote, being your &s;elf able to do much <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ore than here is done, and to di&s;po&s;&s;e&s;s as many of the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Principles as another, (no <HI>Doctor</HI> but Practitioner in your art) in this Coun|try, is &s;aid to have po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed with them. 'Tis only done, Sir, for a te&s;timony to them, of the zeal I know you po&s;&s;e&s;t with for the Prote&s;tant Religion, and of the re&s;pects which he owes you whom you have made &s;o much,</P>
<CLOSER><SIGNED>Your mo&s;t obliged Servant, <HI>J. C.</HI></SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="discourse">
<PB N="1" REF="5">
<HEAD>AN ANSVVER To that Ordinary <HI>Popi&s;h Que&s;tion,</HI> Whether one de&s;erting the <HI>Prote&s;tant Religion,</HI> may not be Saved in the Communion of the <HI>Romi&s;h Church?</HI></HEAD>
<EPIGRAPH>
<BIBL><HI>Matth. 26.26, 27.</HI></BIBL>
<Q>And &s;aid, Take, eat, this is my Body. And he took the Cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them &s;aying, Drink you all of it.</Q>
</EPIGRAPH>
<P>_IN the explication of the Doctrine of the <HI>Sacra|ment of the Supper,</HI> from that account which the E|vangeli&s;t gives of it in this Chapter, (where we have a record of its fir&s;t <HI>In&s;titu|tion</HI>); we are come to the&s;e words: <HI>And he &s;aid, Take, eate, this is my Body.</HI> In my
<PB N="2" REF="6"> la&s;t di&s;cour&s;e I &s;hewed you, what our ble&s;|&s;ed Lord <HI>did; He took Bread, he ble&s;&s;ed it, he brake it, he gave it to them:</HI> In this I &s;hall apply my &s;elf to the explication of what <HI>he &s;aid;</HI> He &s;aid, <HI>This is my body.</HI> In this the three <HI>Evangeli&s;ts,</HI> and <HI>St. Paul</HI> all a|gree; but then <HI>Mark</HI> and <HI>Luke</HI> add, <HI>which was given; St. Paul</HI> 1 Cor. 11. &s;aith <HI>which was broken</HI> for you. <HI>Then he took the Cup</HI> &mdash;and &s;aid, <HI>Drink you all of it, for this is my Blood of the new Te&s;tament which is &s;hed for the remi&s;&s;ion of Sins</HI> (&s;o our Evangeli&s;t); <HI>St. Mark</HI> Ch. 12.24. &s;aith, He &s;aid, <HI>This is my Blood of the new Te&s;tament which is &s;hed for many: St. Paul</HI> 1 Cor. 11.25. <HI>This Cup is the New Te&s;tament, in my blood, This doe you, as oft as you drink it, in remembrance of me.</HI> All agree in the&s;e words, <HI>This is my Body.</HI> For the other Element, <HI>This is my Blood</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Mathew</HI> and <HI>Mark.) This Cup is the new Te&s;tament in my Blood</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Luke</HI> and <HI>Paul</HI>). The propo&s;ition is plain.</P>
<P>Prop. <HI>The Bread and Wine in the Sacra|ment of the Lords Supper, are the body and blood of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>The difficulty is about the right under|&s;tanding of the termes, all of them have afforded matter of great Controver&s;y. Both the <HI>Subject</HI> in the propo&s;ition <HI>This,</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign">; and the <HI>Praedicate, My body, my blood;</HI> and the coupling particle <HI>[Is.]</HI> A word made up but of <HI>two letters,</HI> but which
<PB N="3" REF="6"> hath been occa&s;ion of great &s;trife, an entrance into a large Field of <HI>Blood.</HI> The Apo&s;tle <HI>Jude</HI> willeth us to contend earne&s;t|ly <HI>for the Faith delivered to the Saints, Jude</HI> 3. and the Apo&s;tle to the <HI>Hebrewes</HI> encou|raging them to a patient &s;uffering, tells them, <HI>They had not yet re&s;i&s;ted unto Blood.</HI> I know no propo&s;ition of Chri&s;tian Faith, about which there hath been more contention, None, the Errors again&s;t the truth in which have been more eagerly re&s;i&s;ted unto Blood, for now more then four hundred Years, (&s;ince <HI>Pope Innocent</HI> the third's time, for the popi&s;h Doctrine in the ca&s;e commenceth no higher) then this propo&s;ition under our pre&s;ent Debate. Upon this <HI>Stone</HI> died all tho&s;e ble&s;&s;ed Martyrs in <HI>Q. Maries</HI> time, in our own Land, yea the whole Chri&s;tian world hath been upon this account filled with chri&s;tian Blood. It was then the popi&s;h <HI>Shibboleth, Doe you believe that in the Sacrament of the Altar is the natural bo|dy and blood of Chri&s;t which he brought with him out of the Womb of the Virgin?</HI> was the killing-que&s;tion then: It is made the Prote&s;tant <HI>Shibboleth</HI> now; but with this difference (to &s;hew you the difference be|twixt the mercies of the Synagogue of Anti|chri&s;t, &amp; the true Church of Chri&s;t): As the <HI>Gileadites</HI> &s;erved the <HI>Ephraimites,</HI> Judg. 12.6. who&s;oever could not &s;peak according to their Dialect, they <HI>took him and &s;lew him;</HI>
<PB N="4" REF="7"> &s;o did the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> to our Fore-fathers: did I &s;ay <HI>So?</HI> yea, they &s;uffered them not to die after the ordinary manner of Male|factors; him or her, after &s;tarving and &s;uffocating them in Pri&s;on and Coale-hou|&s;es, they burned alive. But now if any of the&s;e nick-named <HI>Chatholicks</HI> cannot &s;peak after Prote&s;tants, it is onely &s;aid to them, <HI>Sit down lower, and give place to tho&s;e who are more worthy than you:</HI> We will not tru&s;t you with a Sword in your hands, of who&s;e bloo|dy mindes we have had &s;uch experience. I &s;hall in my Di&s;cour&s;e</P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>Shew you the defferent Opinions, about the &s;ence of the Propo&s;ition, or rather of the word [is] for there lies the difference.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. I &s;hall give you &s;ome of tho&s;e Argu|ments, by which the <HI>Prote&s;tant-&s;en&s;e</HI> is con|firmed, <HI>and the &s;en&s;e by others forced upon it is impugned.</HI></P>
<P>There are three Opinions differently fa|voured by three great Parties of the Chri|&s;tian World concerning the &s;ence of the VVord.</P>
<P N="1">1. The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay [It is], that is, the Bread is <HI>converted, changed</HI> or <HI>tran&s;ub&s;tantiated</HI> into the natural body of Chri&s;t. Their O|pinion is this; <HI>That immediately upon the Prie&s;ts Con&s;ecration,</HI> the <HI>&s;ub&s;tance of the Bread</HI> is turned into the body of Chri&s;t.</P>
<P>But the accidents of the bread, the white|ne&s;s, quanti<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="3 letters"> figure, &s;avour, corruptibi|lity,
<PB N="5" REF="7"> <HI>&amp;c.</HI> do remain, under which coucheth the real, natural body of Chri&s;t, the &s;ame which he brought out of the Virgins womb. So that to them [is] &s;ignifies <HI>is converted, is changed into;</HI> this is the Romi&s;h &s;en&s;e.</P>
<P N="2">2. The <HI>Lutherans</HI> pretend (as ju&s;tly they may) to abhor this mon&s;trous &s;en&s;e, and mend the matter a little, and but a little; they interpret is by <HI>[ade&s;t]</HI> is pre&s;ent with: and this is that which they &s;ay, <HI>That the re|al, natural Body of Chri&s;t, is pre&s;ent with the bread &amp; VVine;</HI> the Bread is not annihilated (&s;ay they), not changed and tran&s;ub&s;tantia|ted, but the body of Chri&s;t is <HI>pre&s;ent with it;</HI> and is Sacramentally eaten by the Com|municants. Hence (they &s;ay), that at the Sacrament of the Supper, there is a <HI>three|fold Eating.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>The one Natural,</HI> &s;o we <HI>eate the bread, true &s;ub&s;tantial Bread.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. The &s;econd <HI>Sacramental,</HI> &s;o we <HI>eate the body of Chri&s;t:</HI> This they &s;ay is no <HI>phy|&s;ical eating,</HI> yet performed by our bodily Mouth.</P>
<P N="3">3. The third <HI>Spiritual,</HI> &s;o by Faith every true believer doth there &s;piritually <HI>eate the Fle&s;h, and drink the Bloud of Chri&s;t.</HI> Con|cerning the fir&s;t and la&s;t of the&s;e there is no que&s;tion betwixt us; we grant, the one and the other. The &s;econd we doe not under|&s;tand, and &s;hall find it difficult for them &s;o to open it, that we may under&s;tand it.</P>
<P N="3"><PB N="6" REF="8">3. The third is the Opinion of more re|formed <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> who interpret <HI>[Is]</HI> by [&s;ignifies]; and this is what we a&s;&s;ert for the truth of this Propo&s;ition,</P>
<P><HI>That the Bread and VVine, in the Sacra|ment of the Supper, doth truly &s;ignifiy and (by in&s;titution)</HI> repre&s;ent the <HI>Body and Bloud, that is the death of Chri&s;t: and Chri&s;t (we &s;ay) is there, truly and really, yet but Spiri|tually; and the Vertue and Efficacy of Chri&s;ts Death, &s;o far as concerns growth and profici|ency in Grace, is there truly received by every beleiving Soul.</HI></P>
<P>I am not ignorant, that among&s;t us there are &s;ome who halt a little betwixt the&s;e two Opinions, they would have a <HI>real Pre&s;ence</HI> there, and that &s;omthing more than <HI>&s;piritu|al,</HI> but the manner they cannot expre&s;s; but I &s;hall not concern my &s;elf in the fancy of &s;o &s;mall a party, till they can better o|pen to us their own &s;ence, and di&s;tingui&s;h that <HI>Real-Pre&s;ence more than Spiritual,</HI> from the popi&s;h <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation</HI> or the Luthe|rane <HI>Con&s;ub&s;tantiation:</HI> what other <HI>concomi|tancy</HI> then one of the&s;e they can fancy, we cannot tell; and believe it will be an hard thing for them to tell us. This is a day when the Popi&s;h Emi&s;&s;aries are very bu&s;y in every Shop and <HI>Coffee-Hou&s;e, I</HI> &s;hall therefore in&s;i&s;t a little more largly upon this great Controver&s;y: and open my <HI>fir&s;t</HI> Propo&s;ition by the&s;e <HI>three:</HI></P>
<P N="1"><PB N="7" REF="8">1. Prop. <HI>The Bread</HI> and <HI>Wine in the Sa|crament</HI> is not <HI>annihilated,</HI> not <HI>changed,</HI> or <HI>tran&s;ub&s;tantiated into the natural body of Chri&s;t:</HI> (This I a&s;&s;ert again&s;t the Papi&s;ts).</P>
<P N="3">3. Prop. <HI>The natural Body of Chri&s;t:</HI> is not pre&s;ent in the &s;upper of the Lord with the <HI>Elements of Bread and Wine, nor eaten with our Mouths:</HI> (this again&s;t the Lutherans.)</P>
<P N="3">3. Prop. <HI>The bread and wine in the Supper of the Lord, do truly &s;ignify the Body and Blood of Chri&s;t,</HI> who is <HI>really</HI> but <HI>&s;piritually pre&s;ent, and to be by Faith received by believers.</HI> I be|gin, with the fir&s;t</P>
<P REND="indent">Prop. <HI>The bread and wine, in the Sacra|ment is not the natural body and blood of Chri&s;t, by any annihilation, or peri&s;hing of the &s;ub&s;tance of the bread, of wine, or tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, or change of them in|to his body and bloud.</HI></P>
<P>I &s;hall not promi&s;e you (nor &s;o much as hope my &s;elf) to &s;peak any thing new in &s;o beaten a &s;ubject, which hath al&s;o been argued by &s;o many men of incomparable learning, rea&s;on, and under&s;tanding in the Scriptures, arguing al&s;o for their lives: I may po&s;&s;ibly (as the &s;traits of time for this exerci&s;e will give me leave) give you &s;omthing of the &s;ub&s;tance of larger di&s;cour&s;es in a more known Language, and plainer expre&s;&s;ions, than tho&s;e who being out of the Pulpit took them&s;elves obliged to di&s;cour&s;e in more Schola&s;tick expre&s;&s;ions.</P>
<PB N="8" REF="9">
<P>There are but three wayes (which I know of) which God hath given us by which we may mea&s;ure the truth or fal&s;hood of any <HI>Propo&s;ition, Revelation, Rea&s;on,</HI> and <HI>Sen&s;e:</HI> We will take them all out, and mea&s;ure this piece of <HI>Popi&s;h</HI> &s;tuff by them &s;everally. In &s;hort, we charge it with all the faults 'tis po&s;&s;ible the matter of a Propo&s;ition &s;hould be guilty of; as being contrary
<LIST>
<ITEM><HI>1.</HI> To the Divine Revelation of Holy VVrit.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>2.</HI> To Rea&s;on, in any Exerci&s;e of it.</ITEM>
<ITEM><HI>3.</HI> To the evidence of all our Sen&s;es, under the cogni&s;ance of which it can come.</ITEM>
</LIST></P>
<P>Under one or other of the&s;e Heads, I &s;hall reduce all my di&s;cour&s;e.</P>
<P>I begin with the fir&s;t; I know here they will clamour mo&s;t: they will not pretend to much evidence of <HI>Sen&s;e</HI> or <HI>Rea&s;on.</HI> All their pretended &s;trength is in <HI>Divine Reve|lation;</HI> and that no where, but in this and the parallel Texts. Nor have they any thing here, but what is in the VVord [is]; nor any more in that, but what is in many other texts to prove Chri&s;t <HI>Bread, VVater, a Door, a Shepheard, &amp;c.</HI> (and many other things).</P>
<P>But certainly entire phra&s;es of Scripture, much more &s;ingle words, confe&s;&s;edly <HI>Poly|&s;emous</HI> and of various interpretation, mu&s;t be &s;o interpreted as to agree with the letter and rea&s;on of other Scriptures: Now how
<PB N="9" REF="9"> much other Scripture cro&s;&s;eth this interpre|tation of this Scripture, I &s;hall &s;hew you by reducing the various &s;criptures to a few certain Heads.</P>
<P N="1">1. The fir&s;t rank &s;hall be, all tho&s;e Scrip|tures which &s;peak <HI>of Chri&s;ts body, not con|tinuing upon the Earth, after his A&s;&s;ention, but the Heavens conteining him.</HI> Jo. 13.33. <HI>Little Children, yet a little while and I am with you, whether I go you cannot come,</HI> Jo. 16.17. <HI>I go to the Father.</HI> Jo. 12.8. <HI>The poor you have alwayes with you, but me you have not always.</HI> Acts 3.21. <HI>VVhom the Heavens mu&s;t receive until the re&s;titution of all things.</HI> The&s;e, and &s;uch like Texts, are doubtle&s;s to be under&s;tood of the bodily pre&s;ence of Chri&s;t; and plainly &s;peak of Heaven, as the place which receiveth it, and mu&s;t receive it to the end of the world. And tho&s;e texts in <HI>John</HI> as plainly deny a|ny bodily pre&s;ence of Chri&s;t on the Earth; Now if Chri&s;ts natural Body, were all|ways pre&s;ent when the Supper is admini|&s;tred, the&s;e texts could have no Truth; his Body would at lea&s;t once a week be upon the Earth, in one place or other: Nay all the week long the papi&s;ts would have him; if not on the Altar, yet in their <HI>Box;</HI> they mu&s;t have an <HI>Ho&s;t</HI> always ready to be car|ried about, and I hope that too is the natu|ral Body of Chri&s;t. But this argument will much depend upon the next.</P>
<P N="2"><PB N="10" REF="10">2. The &s;econd rank of Scriptures, is of tho&s;e which deny <HI>the being</HI> of <HI>Chri&s;ts Body in more places than one at the &s;ame time.</HI> They tell us, that <HI>it is the very &s;ame body which Chri&s;t brought out of the Womb of the Virgin, which the bread is changed into,</HI> or which <HI>&s;ucceedeth the bread</HI> (for that phra&s;e better <HI>&s;omtimes</HI> plea&s;eth <HI>Bellarmine</HI>) in the Supper of the Lord. Now there is none who knows not that at the &s;ame time the &s;upper is cele|brated in thou&s;ands of places, wherever it is admini&s;tred (according to their Opini|on) mu&s;t be this body of Chri&s;t; but they will not &s;ay that Chri&s;t hath more than one <HI>natural</HI> Body. And the Scriptures &s;ay, that body which he had in the World was not in one place at the &s;ame time when it was in another, <HI>Jo.</HI> 11.15. <HI>I am glad</HI> (&s;aith Chri&s;t &s;peaking of the place where <HI>Laza|rus</HI> died) that <HI>I was not there;</HI> What &s;ay the Angels? <HI>Mat.</HI> 28.6. <HI>He is ri&s;en, he is not here.</HI> Why might it not be here, and there, and in a thou&s;and places more, if it be po&s;&s;ible that at the &s;ame time, it &s;hould be where-ever the Sacrament of the Supper is admini&s;tred? But if it be, it is a body of a different con&s;titution, from that which the Scripture telleth us that was, which Chri&s;t brought out of the Virgins Womb.</P>
<P N="3">3. A third rank of Scriptures, &s;hall be of tho&s;e, <HI>Where our Lord promi&s;eth the pre|&s;ence of his Spirit, to &s;upply his bodily ab|&s;ence:</HI>
<PB N="11" REF="10"> which is much of the Argument both of the 14th and 16 chapters of <HI>John,</HI> What needed the Apo&s;tles have been trou|bled, for the ab&s;ence of Chri&s;t, as to his natural bodyly Pre&s;ence, (as it is mani|fe&s;t they were from <HI>Jo.</HI> 14.1. <HI>Jo.</HI> 16.7.)? Or, what needed our Saviour, in order to the comforting of his Di&s;ciples under this trouble, have promi&s;ed the pre&s;ence of his Holy Spirit for their reliefe under this trou|ble? If either the Di&s;ciples had thought, or Chri&s;t had intended, that his natural Body &s;hould have been really pre&s;ent with them, &s;o often as they would fulfil his com|mand in eating of this Bread, and drinking this Cup, (which he had commanded them <HI>to do often in remembrance of Him</HI>). Be|&s;ides, how came our Saviour in that con&s;o|latory Sermon <HI>Jo.</HI> 14.15, 16. ch. to mi&s;s this &s;o obvious and oppo&s;ite an Argument to comfort them as to their apprehen&s;ions of his departure? How ea&s;y had it been with him, to have made all &s;hort by telling them, you may make Prie&s;ts, and they may make my Body as oft as they plea&s;e a and you may carry it about with you in Box; and though every Laick &s;hall not &s;ee me, but the Prie&s;ts &s;hall keep me; yet if they be in the lea&s;t &s;ick, I will pre&s;ently come unto them; and as I go through your Streets, a Bell &s;hall ring before me, and e|very one that will may come and behold
<PB N="12" REF="11"> me. This (I &s;ay) had been a real proper Argument; but doubtle&s;s neither our Savi|our nor his Di&s;ciples ever thought of it.</P>
<P N="4">4. A fourth rank of Scriptures, &s;hall be of &s;uch as &s;peak of Sacraments as <HI>&s;piritual Meat,</HI> and the food which Chri&s;t giveth as <HI>&s;piritual Food,</HI> and <HI>eating the Fle&s;h</HI> and drinking the blood of Chri&s;t as <HI>a &s;piritual Action.</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.1. The Fathers did all eate the &s;ame <HI>&s;piritual Meat;</HI> and <HI>drank the &s;ame &s;piritual Drink:</HI> Chri&s;t compares him&s;elf to <HI>Water, Bread, Manna,</HI> Jo. 4. Jo. 6. but it is becau&s;e as the&s;e were the <HI>na|tural</HI> Food of the body, &s;o he was the <HI>&s;pi|ritual Food</HI> of the Soul; as is plain, for <HI>Jo.</HI> 4.14. He is &s;uch Water as <HI>who &s;o drinkes &s;hall not thir&s;t again, but it &s;hould be in him a well of VVater, &s;pringing up to Eternal Life, he is &s;uch Bread,</HI> as he that commeth unto him <HI>&s;hall never hunger,</HI> Jo. 6.35. <HI>not die,</HI> v. 50. but <HI>live for ever.</HI> It &s;peak|eth indeed <HI>of eating the Fle&s;h, and drinking the Blood of Chri&s;t;</HI> but &s;uch an eating, and &s;uch a drinking, as they who u&s;e not, have no life in them, <HI>Jo.</HI> 6.53. they that do u&s;e, <HI>have Eternal Life and &s;hall be rai&s;ed up at the la&s;t Day,</HI> v. 54. dwell in Chri&s;t and they in Him, v. 56. Now this &s;urely is no natural but &s;piritual Eating. But this Doctrine makes <HI>eating the Fle&s;h, and drink|ing the Blood of Chri&s;t, a natural eating and
<PB N="13" REF="11"> drinking;</HI> and Chri&s;ts <HI>Fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>Blood</HI> is by it made natural Food. I am not ignorant that <HI>Bellarmine</HI> contendeth that <HI>Jo.</HI> 6. is to be under&s;tood of the Sacrament; but he re|&s;trains his a&s;&s;ertion to tho&s;e words in that chapter only, v. 51. <HI>The bread which I &s;hall give is my Fle&s;h which I will give for the life of the World.</HI> But he is aware that divers of his own feather (and tho&s;e no mean per|&s;ons) <HI>Gabriel, Cu&s;anus, Cajetan, Tapper, He&s;&s;elius</HI> and: <HI>Jan&s;enius,</HI> &amp;c. were of ano|ther mind; yet he contends for it, becau&s;e Chri&s;t &s;peaks in the future &s;en&s;e <HI>I will give.</HI> I wonder how Chri&s;t could &s;ay <HI>I doe give,</HI> when as yet his time of &s;uffering was not come, (of which he manife&s;tly &s;peaks)? but I mu&s;t not enlarge; tho&s;e who at their lea|&s;ure will peru&s;e what <HI>Chamier</HI> and <HI>VVhita|ker,</HI> and others have an&s;wered, will ea&s;ily &s;ee the vanity of the Je&s;uites proof of that Text's relation to the Sacrament.</P>
<P N="5">5. A fifth rank of Scriptures, is of tho&s;e that &s;peak of the <HI>Elements both before, and after the con&s;ecration, as Bread and VVine:</HI> And this my text doth, and all the other texts parallel to it, (where the Papi&s;ts only &s;trength lieth). He <HI>took, He brake, He gave:</HI> What? <HI>Bread,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11 23. le&s;t any &s;hould &s;ay, this was before the Con&s;ecration, that is not true; for He did not give it before He ble&s;&s;ed it. The Apo&s;tle addeth, as oft as you <HI>eate this Bread,</HI> v. 27. Then v. 28.
<PB N="14" REF="12"> <HI>who&s;oever eateth of this Bread.</HI> v. 29. <HI>Let him eate of this Bread.</HI> Then &s;urely when we eate it, it is bread; not the <HI>natural fle&s;h</HI> of Chri&s;t, but bread: but I &s;hall have op|portunity further to di&s;cour&s;e this Argu|ment, when I come to the Arguments from Rea&s;on, concluding from Scripture-princi|ples.</P>
<P N="6">6. A &s;ixth rank &s;hall be of tho&s;e Scrip|tures, <HI>which &s;peak of the action of Chri&s;ti|ans receiving the Sacrament as a Remem|brance of Chri&s;t:</HI> Surely we do not re|member a <HI>body</HI> pre&s;ent before us, but <HI>ab|&s;ent:</HI> thus <HI>Luke</HI> &s;peaketh, <HI>Lu.</HI> 22.19. thus St. <HI>Paul,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.24. (but po&s;&s;ibly I may al&s;o hereafter touch upon this).</P>
<P N="7">7. A &s;eventh rank, may be of tho&s;e Scriptures, which mention the natural bo|dy of Chri&s;t as <HI>&s;ubject to our Sen&s;es,</HI> as <HI>ex|po&s;ed to Accidents.</HI> The&s;e are very many; after His Re&s;urection (&s;aith <HI>Paul</HI>) he was &s;een of <HI>five hundred brethren at once,</HI> he was <HI>felt by</HI> Thomas, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 15. <HI>Luk.</HI> 21. If the bread be <HI>tran&s;ub&s;tantiated,</HI> or His Body coucheth under the accidents of bread, or &s;ucceedeth the &s;ub&s;tance of Bread, it is not certainly &s;uch a <HI>natural body</HI> of Chri&s;t as the &s;cripture de&s;cribeth to us; and con&s;e|quently, not that very body which he brought with Him out of the Virgins Womb.</P>
<P N="8">8. Eightly, we read <HI>Mat.</HI> 15.27. that
<PB N="15" REF="12"> <HI>VVhat&s;oever entreth in at the mouth goeth in|to the belly, and is ca&s;t out of the Draught.</HI> But &s;urely &s;o is not the body of Chri&s;t; and it were Bla&s;phemy (in a very high degree) for any to a&s;&s;ert it; nor (to give them their due) will any of them &s;ay &s;o; whence we conclude, that then it is bread, not the bo|dy of Chri&s;t, which we take into our mouth in the Sacrament, and which goeth into our belly: For our Saviour plainly here &s;aith, that what&s;oever <HI>goeth into the mouth</HI> [that is, in order to nouri&s;hment] <HI>goeth into the belly, and is ca&s;t out in the Draught.</HI> We would know of them, what that is, that in the Sacrament goeth into the belly, and is &s;o ca&s;t out? They &s;ay the &s;ub&s;tance of the bread is peri&s;hed; the ac|cidents of bread, cannot di&s;turb the &s;to|mach and be &s;o ca&s;t out. They &s;ay that the <HI>Body of Chri&s;t entreth into our mouth;</HI> but the <HI>Species</HI> being corrupted in the &s;tomach, there it cea&s;eth to be the body of Chri&s;t. We ask, what that is that goeth into the draught? It cannot be the meer accidents of bread, <HI>Sola accidentia, nihil patiuntur. Bel|larmine</HI> &s;aith, that text is onely to be un|der&s;tood of that which is taken for our bo|dily nouri&s;hment. But this is an excep|tion without warrant from the Scripture; be&s;ides, it is apparent, that Phy&s;ick and o|ther things not taken meerly for bodily nouri&s;hment, pa&s;s the &s;ame way; and in the
<PB N="16" REF="13"> Sacrament al&s;o it is apparent there is a bo|dily nouri&s;hment; them&s;elves tells us of &s;ome that lived meerly with eating and drinking the Sacramental bread and wine.</P>
<P N="9">9. The ninth and la&s;t rank of &s;criptures, which I &s;hall mention, is of tho&s;e which mention Chri&s;t's <HI>&s;tate of humiliation</HI> as pa&s;t. Divines out of &s;cripture take notice of a double e&s;tate of Chri&s;t; the fir&s;t they call <HI>his e&s;tate of Humiliation,</HI> containing all the time of his &s;uffering, when he was in the form of a &s;ervant, when (as the Apo&s;tle &s;aith) he <HI>humbled him&s;elf; he nothinged him|&s;elf:</HI> when he was (as the Prophet &s;peaks) <HI>oppre&s;&s;ed, afflicted, a man of griefs,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>I&s;.</HI> 53. The &s;econd was his <HI>E&s;tate of Exaltation,</HI> beginning at his Re&s;urrection: Now we &s;ay, Chri&s;ts <HI>e&s;tate of Humiliation is</HI> pa&s;t: <HI>He was once offered to bear the &s;in of many, but He &s;hall appear the &s;econd time without &s;in unto Salvation,</HI> Heb. 9.28. &s;o al&s;o 1 Pet. 3.18. Phil. 2.8.9. <HI>He was found in fa&s;hion as a Man, and took upon Him the form of a Servant, and was made in the likene&s;s of men, and being found in the fa&s;hion of a Man, he humbled him&s;elf, and became obedient to Death, even to the Death upon the Cro&s;s; wherefore God hath highly Exalted him,</HI> &amp;c. &s;o Acts, 5.31. <HI>Him hath God exalted with his right Hand, to be a Prince and a Saviour.</HI> The &s;cripture every where mentioneth,
<PB N="17" REF="13"> Chri&s;t's &s;tate of humiliation as pa&s;t; and his pre&s;ent &s;tate to be a &s;tate of exaltation, But &s;urely (if this popi&s;h Doctrine were true) Chri&s;t is in his e&s;tate of <HI>humiliation</HI> &s;till. Every time a prie&s;t Con&s;ecrates he makes his body, and that &s;o hand&s;omely, as that it &s;hall couch under the accidents of Bread and Wine, nay to &s;ucceed in the place of a piece of <HI>bakers Bread;</HI> and couch in a box, and be, by the Prie&s;t, carried up and down the &s;treets; certainly this is an humi|liation, and that to a &s;trang degree.</P>
<P>Thus you have heard, &s;ome of that Evi|dence which we have from the Revelation of Scripture, again&s;t this mon&s;trous Doc|trine.</P>
<P N="2">2. But we &s;hall find no more light in this Popi&s;h <HI>Notion,</HI> by the u&s;e of the <HI>Candle of the Lord,</HI> &s;et up in our Souls, (which is rea|&s;on), then from the <HI>Lamp of the Lord,</HI> (which is holy Writ); it every whit con|tradicteth Rea&s;on as much as Faith. Rea|&s;on in us is a <HI>power</HI> or <HI>faculty.</HI> Di&s;cour&s;ing from Principles to conclu&s;ions; and we u&s;e it two ways.</P>
<P N="1">1. Setting it to work upon <HI>Natural Principles,</HI> which &s;hine by the light of Na|ture, and are evident to tho&s;e who never knew what Scripture meant.</P>
<P N="2">2. Setting it &s;econdly to work upon <HI>Scrip|ture Principles,</HI> and &s;o <HI>comparing</HI> (as the A|po&s;tle &s;aith) <HI>things &s;piritual with &s;piritual.</HI>
<PB N="18" REF="14"> Few Divine Truths are indeed the fir&s;t way demon&s;trable, but &s;ome are. Let us in this ca&s;e u&s;e rea&s;on which way we will, and we &s;hall find it &s;ufficiently contradicting this mon&s;trous Conception.</P>
<P>Let us u&s;e it the fir&s;t way, ob&s;erving what we by the light of Nature have di&s;covered. 1. <HI>Concerning Bodies.</HI> 2. <HI>Concerning Sub|&s;tances, and Accidents.</HI> The very light of natural Rea&s;on &s;heweth us, that there are two &s;orts of Created Beings, which divide the Creation.</P>
<P>Some Beings, have a &s;ub&s;i&s;tance of them|&s;elves, as Stones, the Earth, all living Bo|dies, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Others have no &s;ub&s;i&s;tance of them&s;elves, yet are &s;omething; as <HI>Colour, Savour, Length, Breadth,</HI> &amp;c. The fir&s;t we call <HI>&s;ub&s;tances,</HI> the &s;econd we call <HI>Acci|dents;</HI> becau&s;e they are appurtenances to &s;ub&s;tances which are the &s;ubjects recei|ving of them, and without which they cannot &s;ub&s;i&s;t; there can be no length, without a &s;ub&s;tance, which is long.</P>
<P>Looking again we di&s;cerne a differing Nature in <HI>Sub&s;tances:</HI> Some have parts di&s;|joined each from other, they have quanti|ty and quality, length, breadth, thickne&s;s, colour, vi&s;ible form, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> The&s;e we call <HI>Bo|dies.</HI> We di&s;cern others which have no &s;uch quantity nor quantitative parts, the&s;e we call <HI>Spirits.</HI> Our Lord hath taught us this, <HI>Luke</HI> 24.39. telling us a Spirit <HI>hath no fle&s;h nor bones</HI> as he had.</P>
<PB N="19" REF="14">
<P>Now concerning the&s;e, looking, again, for &s;uch properties as &s;hould agree to all tho&s;e &s;ub&s;tances which we call <HI>bodies,</HI> a|mong&s;t others we find <HI>Locality,</HI> 1. That e|very <HI>body</HI> mu&s;t be in &s;ome place, which <HI>li|miteth and circum&s;cribeth it; &s;o that, while it is here, it is not there:</HI> Yea indeed this is the property of all created Beings, none of them can be infinite.</P>
<P N="2">2. That all <HI>Bodies do fill and po&s;&s;e&s;s the place where they are, &s;o as no other body can be in that place at that time.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. That all <HI>bodies have an exten&s;ion of parts,</HI> and &s;o are <HI>demen&s;ions, length, breadth, thickne&s;s,</HI> &amp;c. 4. <HI>That all bodies fall under our &s;ences:</HI> we can &s;ee, or feel, or ta&s;te, or &s;mell them.</P>
<P>Concerning tho&s;e Beings in the World, which we call <HI>Accidents,</HI> our Rea&s;on infor|meth us, 1. That they <HI>cannot &s;ub&s;i&s;t by them|&s;elves;</HI> but their very Being depends upon their <HI>in being</HI> in &s;ome &s;ub&s;tance; there's no &s;uch thing as the <HI>height of a</HI> Tower: when the tower is down, or <HI>whitene&s;s of a Wall</HI> when the wall is de&s;troyed.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>That they are not capable of making ad|dition of &s;ub&s;tance to our &s;ub&s;tances;</HI> what body can live with &s;mells, or colours, or the length or breadth, or thickne&s;s of things.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>That they are not capable of Corrupti|on and putrifaction;</HI> fle&s;h may corrupt, but the colour of fle&s;h cannot putrify: <HI>bread</HI>
<PB N="20" REF="15"> may mould, but the colour, or meer thick|ne&s;s of bread doth not mould. Let us now apply the&s;e principles of Rea&s;on to the pre|&s;ent ca&s;e: The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> &s;ay, <HI>That the natural body of Chri&s;t is in the Sacrament, the &s;ub|&s;tance of the bread is peri&s;hed, and in&s;tead of it is come the very body of Chri&s;t,</HI> and <HI>this is it which is put into the mouthes of the Commu|nicants.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. <HI>A body is limited and circum&s;cribed by &s;ome place:</HI> that is, <HI>while it is in one place, it cannot be in another.</HI> This was true of Chri&s;t's Body even after his Re&s;urrection, <HI>He is ri&s;en</HI> (&s;aid the Angels), <HI>He is not here.</HI> So then, if the Body of Chri&s;t be natural|ly and really pre&s;ent here, when the Sacra|ment is admini&s;tred, then it cannot be in any other place at the &s;ame time, when the Sacrament is admini&s;tred; It cannot be in Heaven at the &s;ame time, &amp;c. If one Bo|dy could be in ten places, then one body might be ten bodies (which certainly is a great contradiction), one and the &s;ame body might be &s;aid to be near and a far off, to lie and to move, &amp;c. <HI>Bellarmine</HI> confe&s;&s;es this is a mo&s;t difficult Argument; but yet he will hold his own, and therefore affirms that one and the &s;ame body may be in di|ver&s;e places: 1. <HI>Becau&s;e all things are po&s;|&s;ible with God.</HI> 2. Becau&s;e <HI>Chri&s;t's Body was in Heaven at the &s;ame time</HI> when St. <HI>Paul &s;aw it on the Earth Acts</HI> 9. Yet even <HI>Bel|larmine</HI>
<PB N="21" REF="15"> him&s;elf will acknowledge that God cannot do tho&s;e things which imply a con|tradiction: God cannot make a thing <HI>to be,</HI> and <HI>not to be</HI> at the &s;ame time; and doubt|le&s;s it is of the E&s;&s;ence of a body (which mu&s;t have length, and breadth, and thick|ne&s;s) to fill up a place, and it cannot at the &s;ame time fill up an hundred places. For that of <HI>Paul,</HI> he doubtle&s;s &s;aw the <HI>body of Chri&s;t</HI> but not on Earth; but as <HI>Stephen</HI> beheld Chri&s;t <HI>&s;itting at the right Hand of God;</HI> God not working a contradiction, ma|king the &s;ame body to be in diver&s;e places, but miraculou&s;ly capacitating <HI>Paul</HI> to <HI>&s;ee &amp; hear Chri&s;t in the Heavens; The Light &s;hined from Heaven, Act.</HI> 9.3. v. 7. tho&s;e that were with <HI>Paul heard a Voice</HI> but <HI>&s;aw no man,</HI> on|ly <HI>Paul</HI> was miraculou&s;ly capacitated to &s;ee the body of Chri&s;t as he &s;ate at the right Hand of God. Now if this popi&s;h Doc|trine were true, one and the &s;ame body mu&s;t be in hundreds of places at the &s;ame time.</P>
<P N="2">2. Our Rea&s;on tells us, that <HI>all bodies mu&s;t po&s;&s;e&s;s, and fill the places where they are, &s;o as no other bodies can be in the &s;ame place.</HI> All bo|dies mu&s;t have &s;ome magniude, and in all magnitude there mu&s;t be an extention, &s;o as one part mu&s;t have a &s;ituation different from the other the: Arm is not in the place of the f<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">nger, but beyond it: <HI>Bellarmine</HI> im|&s;elf confe&s;&s;eth, that this is e&s;&s;ential to a bo|dy,
<PB N="22" REF="16"> and therefore &s;aith that the whole body, of Chri&s;t with its magnitude is in the Eu|chrari&s;t; he &s;aith, that for the limitation of a body by place, or the po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ion and oc|cupation of a place, the&s;e are not e&s;&s;ential to quantity, and &s;o are &s;eparable from it, becau&s;e they imply no contradiction. But certainly if it be not e&s;&s;ential to a quantita|tive body to fill a place, then the &s;cite or po|&s;ition of one part &s;hould not exclude the &s;cite and po&s;ition of another; the head might be in the place of the hand, and the hand in the place of the Head; for what hindereth, but the impo&s;&s;ibility of two bo|dies being together in the &s;ame place, but that the whole might be in the place of a part? A di&s;po&s;ition to a certain place is e&s;|&s;ential to a body, becau&s;e of the nece&s;&s;ary magnitude of it; and nothing can be ima|gined more contradictive to the nature of a body then that it &s;hould not fill &s;ome cer|tain place. I know they urge, <HI>Joh.</HI> 20.19. That it is &s;aid that when the Di&s;ciples were met, and the <HI>doors &s;hut,</HI> Chri&s;t <HI>came</HI> and &s;tood in the mid&s;t <HI>among&s;t them.</HI> But to what purpo&s;e they urge this, I cannot tell. For it is not &s;aid he went through the doors when they were &s;hut; the doors were &s;hut before he came in among&s;t them, but it is not &s;aid they were &s;hut when he came in: The doors might be opened to Him, He might come in through the Window: In
<PB N="23" REF="16"> &s;hort, Chri&s;t might come in many wayes without going through the door.</P>
<P N="3">3. Again, our Rea&s;on tells us that <HI>all bo|dies have quantitative parts, and dimen&s;ions;</HI> all bodies mu&s;t have &s;omthing of greatne&s;s, length, breadth, thickne&s;s, according to the nature of the body: So that the body of Chri&s;t cannot &s;ucceed <HI>a wafer-cake,</HI> nor be contained within the &s;pace of <HI>a man's mouth;</HI> nor <HI>&s;hut up in a box,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Durandus</HI> (one of their School-men) &s;tartled at this, and therefore thought it more rea&s;onable to al|low God a power to &s;eparate quantity from bodies, than to a&s;&s;ert a power in God, to make the body of Chri&s;t &s;tand in the place of a <HI>wafer,</HI> or lie in a <HI>pix.</HI> Others of them, &s;ee ab&s;urdity enough in affirming that there may be a body without quantity, (that is, a body, and yet no body); they will &s;ay the body of Chri&s;t in the Sacra|ment hath a greatne&s;s and quantity, but no <HI>parts</HI> di&s;tinct, and &s;eparate each from others &s;pace; that is it hath quantity, but it no quantitative parts. But <HI>Bellarmine</HI> is angry with both the&s;e Opinioni&s;ts in his own Re|ligion, and tells us that whole Chri&s;t, that is, the whole body of Chri&s;t, with its magnitude, and all its accidents (excep|ting relation to the place which it, hath in Heaven; and tho&s;e things which are con|&s;equent to that his exi&s;tence in Heaven), is in the Euchari&s;t; and the whole body of
<PB N="24" REF="17"> Chri&s;t with all its accidents (excepting one|y its relation to the &s;pecies of bread as is the Euchari&s;t) is at the &s;ame time in Hea|ven: and that his body in the Euchari&s;t hath &s;uch figure, colour, and parts, as our bodies have; and this he &s;aith is the com|mon opinion of their Church, <HI>Bellarmine de Euchar. l.</HI> 3. cap. 5. Now let our Rea&s;on but judge how this is po&s;&s;ible: Suppo&s;e our Sa|viour's body but of the lea&s;t &s;ize of humane bodies, 3. 4. or 5. foot high, and 12. or 16. inches thickne&s;s; how is it po&s;&s;ible, that it &s;hould &s;ucceed in the place of a wafer-cake that is not two inches in height or thick|ne&s;s? Is it not another contradiction to &s;ay, that a body that takes up the height of 3. 4. or 5. foot, and the thickne&s;s of 12. inches, may be contained in the &s;pace of one, two, or three inches?</P>
<P N="4">4. Our rea&s;on tells us, <HI>That bodies are &s;ubject to our &s;en&s;es,</HI> to one or another if not to all of them: we may either &s;ee <HI>or hear, or ta&s;t, or &s;mell, or feel</HI> any bodily &s;ub|&s;tance; but this cannot be &s;aid of the body of Chri&s;t in the Euchari&s;t: (but I &s;hall have occa&s;ion further to enlarge on this hereaf|ter).</P>
<P>Let us turn a little and &s;ee, what our Rea&s;on tells us concerning tho&s;e beings in the world, which we call accidents: And &s;o I in&s;tanced in three things.</P>
<P N="1">1. That <HI>Accidents cannot &s;ub&s;i&s;t of them|&s;elves.</HI>
<PB N="25" REF="17"> It is impo&s;&s;ible to &s;eparate the fi|gure of a man from the man, the colour of the <HI>Wall</HI> from the Wall, the height, length, or breadth, of an hou&s;e from the hou&s;e. But (according to this Doctrine) Accidents may and mu&s;t &s;ub&s;i&s;t without <HI>Sub&s;tances;</HI> here is the whitene&s;s of the bread, and yet no bread to be white; the ta&s;te of bread, the figure of bread, the &s;mell of bread, yet here is no bread to give a ta&s;t, nor to have a figure, (than which it is impo&s;&s;ible any thing &s;hould be more contrary to Rea|&s;on)</P>
<P N="2">2. Again. Our <HI>Rea&s;on tells us,</HI> that <HI>Ac|cidents are not capable of any putrifaction;</HI> only &s;ub&s;tances putrify: But according to their Doctrine, either Accidents mu&s;t cor|rupt and putrify, or Chri&s;t's <HI>Body mu&s;t pu|trifie;</HI> the latter they will not &s;ay, and &s;o are forced to &s;ay <HI>that Accidents may putrify,</HI> To avoid this, <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;aith, a new mat|ter is Created: But what this new mat|ter is, that mu&s;t be created and made capa|ble of <HI>moulding, &s;tincking,</HI> breeding of Worms, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> they cannot tell us, &s;ome &s;ay, the Worms are made of the <HI>Air;</HI> but <HI>Aquinas</HI> argues the vanity of this. Some of them &s;ay, (and <HI>Innocent</HI> the third is one of them), that the &s;ub&s;tance of the Bread and Wine, returneth and putrifieth; but <HI>Aquinas</HI> tells them this cannot be, for the &s;ame numerical thing once peri&s;hed, cannot
<PB N="26" REF="18"> return: and be&s;ides, none can tell the time when it returns again to bread. Others &s;ay, that there is a new Sub&s;tance created &amp; that putrifies: <HI>Aquinas</HI> him&s;elf thinks there mu&s;t be &s;ome quantity in which the accedents are, and that is it which corrupts. <HI>Cajetan</HI> &s;aith this is impo&s;ible, becau&s;e this ab&s;tact|ted quantity hath no matter in it; he will have therefore this quantity in a moment to be changed into a &s;ub&s;tance, (contrary to all Rea&s;on and Philo&s;ophy, which tells us no motion is <HI>in an in&s;tant</HI>); that accidents cannot corrupt and putrify, is &s;o evident as nothing can be more; on the other &s;ide, it is as evident that the bread and wine in the Sacrament may: They have then no|thing to &s;ay to avoid this ab&s;urdity, but that after the Sacrament, nay in the time while the bread is betwixt our mouth and our &s;to|mach, God creates a new bread, which may corrupt in the &s;tomach, or grow mouldy, and breed worms in a box.</P>
<P N="3">3. Our Rea&s;on tells us, that accidents cannot add <HI>&s;ub&s;tance</HI> to <HI>&s;ub&s;tances:</HI> we are &s;ub&s;tances, and mu&s;t be nouri&s;hed by <HI>&s;ub|&s;tance</HI> &s;aith Rea&s;on; The &s;ub&s;tance of the nouri&s;hment pa&s;&s;eth into the &s;ub&s;tance of the body. Surely the colour, figure, length, breadth, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> of our meat, would not nou|ri&s;h us if &s;eparated from the &s;ub&s;tance of it. It is mo&s;t certain, the <HI>bread and wine in the Sacrament</HI> will nouri&s;h us; them&s;elves tell
<PB N="27" REF="18"> us &s;tories of per&s;ons maintained by it a|lone: we would know, what that is which nouri&s;heth us? Not the &s;ub&s;tance of the <HI>bread and wine,</HI> that they &s;ay is peri&s;hed; <HI>not the body of Chri&s;t,</HI> then it mu&s;t corrupt: What then? The accidents &s;ure of the bread which they &s;ay do remain: but no|thing more contrary to Rea&s;on than this. Some of them therefore tell us, that the <HI>&s;ub&s;tantial forms</HI> of the Bread and Wine re|main; and they nouri&s;h us: but <HI>Bellarmine</HI> calls them Hereticks that &s;ay &s;o. Others make a new Miracle and &s;ay, the accidents are turn'd into a &s;ub&s;tance, and &s;o nouri&s;h us. But others tell us plainly, that <HI>Acci|dents</HI> in great quantity may nouri&s;h us. (If I mi&s;take not, <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;omewhere &s;aith &s;o). But the <HI>Cardinal</HI> would have been loth to have tried that experiment, whether the meer colour, figure, length, breadth, or thickne&s;s, or any other acci|dents, without the &s;ub&s;tances of any crea|tures, could keep one alive.</P>
<P>Thus I have &s;hewed you the <HI>Non-&s;ence</HI> of the Popi&s;h figment, as it contradicteth Rea|&s;on &s;tanding upon natural Principles, and from thence making conclu&s;ions.</P>
<P>But they will tell us, that every Propo|&s;ition of truth is not to be brought to the mea&s;ures of natural Rea&s;on: concluding from its own principles: which is indeed true; for we &s;ay, that though no propo&s;i|tion
<PB N="28" REF="19"> of divine Truth be contrary to Rea&s;on, yet &s;ome are above the comprehen&s;ion of it, and Rea&s;on cannot tell How &s;uch things &s;hould be. There is therefore another u&s;e of Rea&s;on, when it di&s;cour&s;eth conclu&s;i|ons from Scriptural Principles: we &s;hall find <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> in this execution of its office as little a friend to <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation,</HI> as we &s;hall &s;ee by the following Eviden|ces.</P>
<P N="1">1. I ob&s;erved to you before, that the Scripture calleth the Sacramental Ele|ments, both before and after Con&s;ecration, <HI>Bread</HI> and <HI>Wine.</HI> Now ob&s;erve the <HI>working of Rea&s;on</HI> upon this Foundation in Scrip|ture: we, upon a view of the world, ob|&s;erve a great variety of things, &s;ome of the &s;ame kind with others, others of a different kind; and accordingly names of things are &s;uted to them: we could otherwi&s;e make no di&s;tinct di&s;cour&s;es, and &s;hould as little under&s;tand each other as tho&s;e that builded <HI>Babel.</HI> Now if the names of things gene|rically different one from another, could be indifferently given to each other, we could no longer under&s;tand one another; we might call a Hor&s;e a Tree, and a Tree an Hor&s;e, with as good Rea&s;on as <HI>Bread a bo|dy,</HI> or a <HI>Body Bread,</HI> unle&s;s we &s;peak figura|tively in regard of &s;ome analogy. 'Tis as good &s;en&s;e to call a &s;tone a man, and a man a &s;tone, as to call bread a living body,
<PB N="29" REF="19"> or a living body bread, (in any other than a figurative &s;en&s;e). Now that the Scripture calls the Sacramental Element <HI>bread,</HI> is plain: All the Evangeli&s;ts and the Apo&s;tles &s;aith, He took <HI>bread,</HI> and <HI>ble&s;&s;ed it;</HI> it, What? Surely what he took that was bread, He brake <HI>it,</HI> what was that? Bread &s;till, for it is a relative, He gave <HI>it,</HI> What did he give? bread &s;till, and &s;aid <HI>This is my Body: This,</HI> that indeed is a demon&s;trative parti|cle, but relative too: For our Rea&s;on prompts us again to &s;ay, <HI>This What?</HI> The <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> are infinitely confounded here; will they &s;ay <HI>This</HI> (that is) this which I have taken, ble&s;&s;ed, brake, given? Then it mu&s;t be taken figuratively, for no di&s;|parate term can be naturally predicated of another di&s;parate: VVe may as well call Gra&s;s an Hor&s;e, or an Hor&s;e a Tree, as call bread a living body: well, what &s;hall it be then? <HI>This body is my body.</HI> This indeed would make the particle to be of no rela|tive but only of a demon&s;trative force; But what &s;en&s;e would there be in that? Neither will they have the the <HI>Body of Chri&s;t</HI> to be there till the words be pronounced: Others therefore &s;ay, <HI>This</HI> doth but denote &s;ome uncertain thing to be expounded by &s;ome|thing that follows; as we &s;ay <HI>This is a Di|amond,</HI> &amp;c. Be it &s;o, but &s;till there mu&s;t be &s;omething to which <HI>This</HI> relates; when we &s;ay this is a <HI>Saphire,</HI> or <HI>This is a Diamond,</HI>
<PB N="30" REF="20"> we mean <HI>this Being</HI> in &s;uch or &s;uch: We would know, what being that is that is here called the body of Chri&s;t? When we &s;ay this is a <HI>Diamond,</HI> we mean this <HI>Stone</HI> or this ina|nimate Being is a &s;tone called a Diamond; but we ask what is the Antecedent to this? It mu&s;t be this Being, this &s;ub&s;tance, and in what kind of beings that is? He that &s;aith, <HI>This is a Diamond,</HI> &s;peaks of a &s;pecies; and the general term, under which that kind falls, is the antecedent and an&s;wereth to this: but in this phra&s;e <HI>This is my Body,</HI> ei|ther this hath no kind of Being to which it relateth, or el&s;e <HI>Bread is</HI> it. To &s;ay it hath no Antecedent is to &s;ay, <HI>This nothing</HI> is the body of Chri&s;t: To &s;ay, this (that is) <HI>This bread</HI> is the body of Chri&s;t, is to give the &s;ame name to things of a quite differing kind; for bread and wine are things <HI>with|out Life,</HI> and the body of Chri&s;t is a <HI>Being with Life;</HI> and it were as good &s;en&s;e to call a <HI>Rock a Lion,</HI> or a <HI>Lion</HI> a pebble.</P>
<P N="2">2. But &s;econdly, the Scripture tells us, that our Lord at the &s;ame time when he &s;aid, <HI>This is my Body, took the Cup al&s;o,</HI> and &s;aid, <HI>This Cup is the new Te&s;tament</HI> in my Blood <HI>Lu.</HI> 22.20. Rea&s;on tells us, that if the word [is] mu&s;t in the fir&s;t words be taken literally, it &s;hould al&s;o be taken &s;o in the &s;e|cond phra&s;e: Then the <HI>Cup</HI> (whether made of <HI>Earth,</HI> or <HI>Wood,</HI> or <HI>Silver,</HI> or <HI>Stone,</HI> or a|ny other materials, was the <HI>New Covenant
<PB N="31" REF="20"> in the blood of Chri&s;t;</HI> but &s;urely the new Covenant in the blood of Chri&s;t was not a piece of <HI>Silver,</HI> or <HI>VVood,</HI> or <HI>Stone.</HI> Let them &s;hew us a Rea&s;on why <HI>is</HI> &s;hall not be interpreted alike in both phra&s;es, it being &s;poken by the <HI>&s;ame Mouth</HI> at the <HI>&s;ame time,</HI> and concerning the <HI>&s;ame thing?</HI> Two things <HI>I</HI> mu&s;t confe&s;s <HI>I</HI> have heard offered to blunt the force of this Rea&s;on: one thing <HI>was</HI> once replied to my &s;elf urging a <HI>Je&s;uite</HI> with this ab&s;urdity; he told me <HI>there was not the &s;ame Rea&s;on</HI> to interpret [is] lite|rally in that phra&s;e, relating to the Cup, as in the other phra&s;e relating to the bread: <HI>I</HI> demanded, wherein the di&s;parity appea|red? He replied, becau&s;e the latter (inter|preted figuratively) is a common way of &s;peaking, but not the other: <HI>I</HI> confe&s;s <HI>I</HI> under&s;tood not the an&s;wer. 'Tis true, 'tis an ordinary way of &s;peaking, To &s;ay <HI>this Cup</HI> (that is) <HI>This liquor in the Cup;</HI> but that rea|cheth not the que&s;tion: for the liquor in the Cup was not the <HI>New Covenant</HI> but <HI>fi|guratively;</HI> as we &s;ay the <HI>Bread is the Bo|dy.</HI> Now <HI>I</HI> do not under&s;tand how this is a more ordinary form of &s;peech, to &s;ay the <HI>VVine</HI> &s;ignifies the Blood of Chri&s;t or the New Covenant in his Blood; then to &s;ay <HI>The Bread is his Body.</HI> They therefore &s;peak &s;omething more plau&s;ibly, who, in &s;ome pre|tence of an&s;wer to this Argument, tell us that both St. <HI>Mathew,</HI> and <HI>Mark</HI> &s;ay, no
<PB N="32" REF="21"> more than <HI>This is my Blood:</HI> and though <HI>St. Luke,</HI> and <HI>St. Paul</HI> &s;ay, <HI>This Cup is the New Te&s;tament in my Blood;</HI> yet they mu&s;t be interpreted by <HI>Mathew</HI> and <HI>Mark.</HI> This only difficulty attends them, to tell us why St. <HI>Mathew</HI> and <HI>Mark,</HI> (&s;pea|king le&s;s then the other) mu&s;t interpret <HI>Luke</HI> and <HI>Paul,</HI> rather than <HI>St. Luke</HI> and <HI>St. Paul,</HI> interpret them? E&s;pecially when their additional words are a plain expo&s;iti|on of the other? <HI>This is my Blood</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Mathew</HI> and <HI>Mark</HI>); This? this, what? (&s;ay we)? Not this <HI>VVine</HI> (&s;ay the Papi&s;ts), but this (we know not what) this <HI>individu|um vagum,</HI> this thing to be drunk: but &s;urely St. <HI>Luke</HI> and St. <HI>Paul</HI> are better in|terpreters. <HI>This Cup</HI> (&s;ay they), and &s;ure|ly this is more rational, to admit <HI>Paul</HI> and <HI>Luke,</HI> (both later writers too) interpreters of our Saviour's VVords, rather than them.</P>
<P N="3">3. Again, VVhat &s;aith the Scripture? <HI>This is my Body, which is broken for you:</HI> There is the Verb [is] in the latter part of the Sentence, &s;hall it be taken, without a figure? Then the <HI>Body of Chri&s;t</HI> was bro|ken <HI>before He &s;uffered;</HI> For when our Lord &s;pake this, He had not been broken: The Bread was broken but not his Body. They do indeed tell us, <HI>That Verbs in ordinary &s;peech, do not alwayes &s;ignify the certain time, but only the truth of the Action; as
<PB N="33" REF="21"> pa&s;t, or to come, as well as pre&s;ent:</HI> and they &s;ay true, but then there mu&s;t be a figure; they are enforced to allow us an <HI>Enallage,</HI> we contend for a <HI>Metonymye</HI> al&s;o. Can they give us any in&s;tances where <HI>is,</HI> in the pre&s;ent Ten&s;e, doth often denote a time to come? and have we none to give them where <HI>I am,</HI> and <HI>is,</HI> import no more then <HI>&s;ignifies?</HI> In what other ten&s;e did Chri&s;t u&s;e it, when he &s;aid I am <HI>the Door, the true Vine, I am the way,</HI> &amp;c. But Fourthly,</P>
<P N="4">4. The Scripture plainly mentioneth <HI>this Ordinance,</HI> as an Ordinance for <HI>Memo|rial,</HI> or to <HI>call to Remembrance;</HI> Lu. 22.19. <HI>Do this in remembrance of me:</HI> &s;o 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.24. Now Rea&s;on a&s;&s;ures us, that they are not things and per&s;ons pre&s;ent, about which we u&s;e our memories, but per&s;ons ab&s;ent and actions which are pa&s;t. If the body of Chri&s;t be really pre&s;ent as often as the Sa|crament is admini&s;tred, what needed <HI>that Action to call to remembrance</HI> the dying bo|dy of Chri&s;t? There were no action pro|per relating to the body if pre&s;ent, but a contemplation and in&s;titution of it; but this is not the Nature of this Ordinance, as appears from Scripture. VVill any &s;ay it is the <HI>remembrance of his Death,</HI> now his death is not pre&s;ent though his body be pre|&s;ent? VVe an&s;wer, His bodily pre&s;ence would rather hinder the remembrance of his death then promove it. How &s;hould the
<PB N="34" REF="22"> taking of his <HI>living body</HI> (as our learned <HI>Whitaker</HI> well argues) commemorate his Death? I know they al&s;o tell us, that there is not only a commemoration of his death, but a communication of Chri&s;t to Belie|vers: The end of the Sacrament was re|mi&s;&s;ion of &s;ins (&s;aith <HI>Bellarmine</HI>). There is no doubt of that, but this is the ultimate end, for the certitude of which, as to us, This Ordinance was in&s;tituted, that by re|membring Chri&s;ts death in it we might be a&s;certain'd of the remi&s;&s;ion of Sins; to the obtaining of which Chri&s;ts bodily pre&s;ence is not nece&s;&s;ary.</P>
<P N="5">5. The holy Scripture a&s;&s;ures us, <HI>that the Sacred body of Chri&s;t &s;hall not &s;ee corruption: P&s;al.</HI> 16.10. <HI>Acts</HI> 2.31. <HI>Acts</HI> 13.35. Nay certainly it forbiddeth us to think or &s;peak unreverently of that holy thing. How then can that be the <HI>Body of Chri&s;t,</HI> which the Prie&s;t hath Con&s;ecrated, and which Com|municants take into their mouths, &s;o into the Belly, which corrupteth in the Sto|mach, is ca&s;t out in the draught, which breeds VVorms, mouldeth, and which a mou&s;e may eate, or by a teachy &s;tomack, may be thrown up before it hath had any abode there? <HI>Innocent (the third Pope of</HI> that name) who fir&s;t opened this pack of ware in the Church of Rome, (immediate|ly after whom <HI>Honorius</HI> came and decreed <HI>Elevation</HI> and <HI>kneeling</HI> to fit the new made
<PB N="35" REF="22"> God with a new VVor&s;hip), was not &s;o weak as not to fore&s;ee the&s;e difficulties; it will be plea&s;ant to hear how prettily he an|&s;wers them in his fourth Book <HI>demy|&s;teriis mi&s;&s;ae.</HI> He propounds one que&s;tion a|bout a <HI>Mou&s;e eating &s;ome of the con&s;ecrated Bread,</HI> (which Mr. <HI>Gage</HI> tells us he &s;aw at a place in the we&s;t Indies;) the Que&s;tion is in that ca&s;e, <HI>whether the Mou&s;e eateth the Body of Chri&s;t?</HI> if it doth, it certainly <HI>&s;eeth Corruption.</HI> But the doting Pope will deliver us from this fear; (&s;aith he)
<Q>Sicut miraculo&s;e panis convertitur in cor|pus Domini, cum incipit e&s;&s;e &s;ub Sacra|mento, &s;ic miraculo&s;e revertitur cum ibi de&s;init e&s;&s;e.</Q></P>
<P>As the Bread was miraculou&s;ly <HI>turn'd</HI> into the Lords Body when as the Sacrament begins, So it is Miraculou&s;ly turned again to Bread, when the Sacrament ended. <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;aith well, the time of this conver&s;ion cannot be a&s;&s;ign'd; it is (as the Father of this figment &s;aith) as &s;oon as the Sacrament ends: Then the Bread in the <HI>Pix</HI> is bread, &amp; that which they carry about for the ho&s;t is Bread, and the poor people fall down in the dirt to wor&s;hip <HI>a piece of Bread;</HI> for it is now not in <HI>e&s;&s;e Sacramenti,</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">nd it is but bread again, <HI>The Nature of the Bread</HI> hath overcome the Miracle (&s;aith <HI>Innocent,) &amp; lege detrahit di&s;pen&s;atio:</HI> VVell! but this is a thing which happens <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">ut &s;eldome. Another que&s;tion is, <HI>What
<PB N="36" REF="23"> becomes of the body of Chri&s;t when it comes out of our mouthes, and down our throats?</HI> To this the old man an&s;wereth, (cap. 15. eju&s;|dem lib:) <HI>Po&s;tquam in percipiendo &s;en&s;us de|ficit corpori, non e&s;t quaerenda corporali<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> &s;ed &s;piritualis prae&s;entia; Chri&s;tus de ore, tran&s;it in cor; melius e&s;t quod procedat in mentem qu&agrave;m de&s;inat in ventrem, &mdash; &s;toma|cho non digeritur, in &s;ece&s;&s;um non effluit.</HI> That is, when the body hath no further &s;en&s;e or feeling of it, we mu&s;t not &s;eek for a bodily but a &s;piritual pre&s;ence; Chri&s;t pa&s;&s;eth out of the mouth into the Heart, and it is better that he &s;hould go into the heart then cea&s;e in the Belly; &mdash; He is not dige&s;ted by the &s;tomach, nor pa&s;&s;eth into the draught.</P>
<P>VVell! but &s;uppo&s;e a &s;tomach di&s;orde|red by wind, or ill humours, that will not admit it lodging there, but immediately vo|mits it up? The &s;ubtil old Pope thought of this too (<HI>Ibid. cap.</HI> 16.)
<Q>Quum po&s;t de&s;pen&s;ationis officium aliquid iterat&ograve; &s;entitur, in hoc quoque &s;pecies ad proprietatem &s;en&s;ui famulatur, ut veritas &s;imilitudinis ubique &s;ervetur; nam in quo &s;imilitudo deficeret in eo Sacramen|tum non e&s;&s;et, &s;ed ibi &s;e proderet &amp; fidei locum auferet, neque jam crederetur quod ita fieri non oportuit. Itaque quantum ad nos &s;ervat per omnia corruptibilis cibi &s;imi|litudinem, &s;ed quantum ad &s;e, non amit|tit inviolabilis corporis veritatem.</Q></P>
<PB N="37" REF="23">
<P>This (grammatically con&s;trued) is thus much; when after the office of giving [the Euchari&s;t] &s;omething is again felt, in this al&s;o the <HI>Species</HI> properly &s;erves the &s;en&s;e; that the truth of the &s;imilitude may be eve|ry where pre&s;erved: For where the &s;imili|tude &s;hould fail, there would be no Sacra|ment; but it would there di&s;cover it &s;elf and take away any room for Faith: Nor would it now have been believed, that it ought not to have &s;o been. Therefore as to us it, in all things, keeps the &s;imilitude of cor|ruptible meat, but as to its &s;elf it keeps the verity of an incorruptible Body. Let him that reads this under&s;tand if he can, what all this &s;ignifies as to a &s;olution of the Difficulty, unle&s;s he could make us believe that what we vomit up is but the <HI>Acci|dents of the bread;</HI> that is the <HI>whitene&s;s,</HI> &amp;c. of it, &s;omething like bread, for if it be a|ny &s;ub&s;tance, we ask, what &s;ub&s;tance it is? Not the &s;ub&s;tance of the bread, that we are told returned into the body of Chri&s;t, or at lea&s;t annihilated, &s;o as the body of Chri&s;t &s;ucceeded it (to u&s;e <HI>Bellarmin's</HI> word:) So that, at be&s;t, a new &s;ub&s;tance mu&s;t be created, and then it mu&s;t be created in that in&s;tant of time too, while the bread is betwixt the mouth and the &s;tomach: VVas ever poor Pope put to harder &s;hifts? But (the truth is) &s;uch mi&s;terys of &s;en&s;e are fitter to be decreed, by one whom the world is before-hand &s;o be&s;ot|ted
<PB N="38" REF="24"> as to own for infallible, than di&s;puted. But enough of this!</P>
<P N="6">6. The &s;cripture telleth us that the <HI>body of Chri&s;t is in Heaven:</HI> where el&s;e did <HI>Ste|phen</HI> &s;ee him? <HI>Acts</HI> 7. the Heavens <HI>mu&s;t receive him</HI> (&s;aith the Apo&s;tle) <HI>Acts</HI> 3.21. But we are &s;ure, the <HI>Lords Supper is not in Heaven;</HI> therefore we conclude it is not the body of Chri&s;t, in a natural and phy&s;ical &s;en&s;e: what will they &s;ay? doth it come down from Heaven to be eaten &s;o oft as the Sacra|ment is admini&s;tred? when then doth it re|turn again? or doth it &s;tay here? it doth not pre&s;ently I hope returne: what is that in the <HI>pix</HI> then? VVhat's that they carry a|bout in the box with &s;o much &s;olemnity? Here the old <HI>Pope</HI> was at a lo&s;s again; <HI>Ego ne|&s;cio quomodo Chri&s;tus accedit, &s;ed &amp; quomodo recediti gnoro; novit ille qui nihil ignorat:</HI> I know not (&s;aith he) how he comes, nor how he goes back; he knoweth who know|eth all things. Further yet,</P>
<P N="7">7. It is generally believed, that our Lord him&s;elf communicated with his Di&s;ciples at his in&s;titution of this Sacred Ordinance, and undoubtedly what he eat &amp; drank they did eat and drink: <HI>Did the natural body of Chri&s;t eate the natural body</HI> of Chri&s;t think we? That Chri&s;t communicated with his Di&s;ciples is not indeed in &s;o many words &s;aid, but both <HI>Mathew</HI> and <HI>Mark</HI> add tho&s;e words, <HI>I will not henceforth drink with you of the
<PB N="39" REF="24"> Fruit of the Vine;</HI> which implies that he had then drank with them of it, and it is generally &s;o received by Divines of all per|&s;wa&s;ions both ancient and modern: So as if they did eat Chri&s;ts natural Body, Chri&s;t al&s;o did eat his own natural body. Nor is the ab&s;urdity of this to be avoided, by their &s;aying they deny any <HI>Pa&s;&s;ion of the body of Chri&s;t in this Ordinance;</HI> (with what &s;en&s;e they &s;peak that, meaning impre&s;&s;ions of vio|lence by their pa&s;&s;ions we will examine hereafter po&s;&s;ibly): but if there be an agent there mu&s;t be a patient, and the&s;e two can|not be the &s;ame. In all actions there mu&s;t be &s;omething to act upon, but if Chri&s;t did eat his own body, the <HI>Agent</HI> and the <HI>Patient</HI> where both the &s;ame; his natural body was the <HI>Agent</HI> that did eat, and his natu|ral body was the <HI>Patient</HI> too that was Ea|ten. A man half fami&s;hed may eat the fle&s;h of his own Arm, a piece of his own body, but that his own body &s;hould eat up his own whole body, were very &s;trange.</P>
<P N="8">8. Again, if the natural body of Chri&s;t be in the Sacrament, 'tis there either <HI>Capable of &s;uffering,</HI> or not <HI>capable of &s;uffering:</HI> They generally &s;ay not <HI>capable of Suffering;</HI> but if &s;o, 1. How doth Chri&s;t &s;ay <HI>It is broken for you?</HI> Doth not breaking think we &s;ig|nify &s;uffering? 2. How <HI>is it the &s;ame body</HI> which <HI>Chri&s;t brought out of the Virgins Womb?</HI> 3. It is certain, that <HI>though after
<PB N="40" REF="25"> his Re&s;urrection</HI> his body was not capable of &s;uffering, yet at the time of his in&s;titution of this Ordinance it was &s;o: and if Chri&s;t gave his Di&s;ciples <HI>his body,</HI> it was &s;uch a body as he had to give, and that was a bo|dy capable of &s;uffering by violent impre&s;|&s;ions; and if they did <HI>Eat this,</HI> if this <HI>were broken</HI> in the Sacrament, then Chri&s;t &s;uffered before he &s;uffered. Here again, the fir&s;t inventor of this <HI>(Innocent the third)</HI> was at a lo&s;s; he is forced to grant, that our Sa|viour gave &s;uch a body to his di&s;ciples, as he had to give; and that that body was a mortal Body, capable of &s;uffe|ring; well, how then? <HI>Non quod po&s;&s;et pa|ti in Sacramento</HI> (&s;aith he, <HI>l.</HI> 4. <HI>de mi&s;&s;a, cap.</HI> 12.) <HI>&s;ed quod &s;ub Sacramento po&s;&s;et pati; nunc autem &s;umitur a nobis immortale &amp; im|pa&s;&s;ibile:</HI> Not (&s;aith he) that it could &s;uffer in the Sacrament, but that, under the Sacra|ment, he might &s;uffer; but now we receive it an immortal body, which cannot &s;uffer. (How much &s;en&s;e there is in this judg you.) VVell, but if Chri&s;t in the fir&s;t in&s;titution gave his Di&s;ciples a body capable of &s;uffe|ring by violent impre&s;&s;ions, how came it that the Di&s;ciples, eating it, did not fa&s;ten their Teeth in it? Hear the old Pope again, how wittily he untieth this Knot.</P>
<Q>Quod autem pa&s;&s;ibilis Edebatur non laedebatur, non erat humanae naturae &s;ed divinae poten|tiae qu&acirc; valebat quicquid omnino volebat.</Q>
<PB N="41" REF="25">
<P>Wit, in the two <HI>Paranoma&s;iae's,</HI> in it, than a|ny good Sen&s;e or Divinity). It is Divine Power it &s;eemes that alone could &s;ecure it from &s;uffering, for of it &s;elf it was capable; if they could but prove too that Divine Power doth all it can do, and u&s;eth to ex|erci&s;e it &s;elf in things of no &s;ignificency or utility, their work was done, as to this bu|&s;ine&s;s; but either of the&s;e will be difficult.</P>
<P N="9">9. Further yet, if what we receive in the Sacrament, be the <HI>Natural Body of Chri&s;t,</HI> then the meat is <HI>fle&s;hly Meat;</HI> or el&s;e we eat the natural Fle&s;h, and yet do not eat the <HI>natural Fle&s;h</HI> of Chri&s;t (which is a con|tradiction). But the Scripture &s;peaks of <HI>Sacramental Food</HI> as <HI>&s;piritual Meat</HI> and <HI>&s;pi|ritual Drink</HI> and of the Food, which Chri&s;t gives, as &s;piritual Food; The Fathers under the old Te&s;tament (&s;aith the Apo&s;tle 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10.11.) did eat <HI>the &s;ame &s;piritual Meat</HI> and <HI>drink the &s;ame &s;piritual Drink with us.</HI> And this (&s;aith he) was <HI>Chri&s;t;</HI> but it could not be the natural Body of Chri&s;t, for he was not then incarnate, he had not yet a&s;&s;umed a natural Body. Chri&s;t tells us al&s;o that the meat, he gives, is &s;piritual, not carnal; <HI>Jo.</HI> 6. (But I have enlarged upon this un|der the fir&s;t head of Arguments).</P>
<P N="10">10. Our Lord &s;peaking <HI>Jo.</HI> 6. of that <HI>Bread</HI> which he giveth to his people to Eat&punc; &s;aith, that <HI>He who eateth thereof &s;hall not Die,</HI> v 5. This <HI>Bread (he &s;aith) is his Fle&s;h</HI>
<PB N="42" REF="26"> v. 51. <HI>&amp; who &s;o eateth his Fle&s;h, &amp; drinketh his Blood, hath eternal life,</HI> ver. 54. <HI>And he will rai&s;e him up at the la&s;t day;</HI> and <HI>he that eateth the Fle&s;h, and drinketh the Blood of Chri&s;t, dwelleth in Chri&s;t, and Chri&s;t dwell|eth in him:</HI> So that who&s;oever eateth the Sacrament, if Chri&s;t there gives his fle&s;h, <HI>he dwelleth in Chri&s;t,</HI> and <HI>Chri&s;t dwelleth in him; he hath eternal life, he &s;hall never dye, but &s;hall be rai&s;ed up at the la&s;t day.</HI> But can any one think that the&s;e things are true of every one that receiveth the Sacrament? How then can any eat and drink unworthi|ly? or eat and drink Judgment to them|&s;elves (as the Apo&s;tle plainly &s;aith, 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 11.) To avoid this, the old Pope (before mentioned) telleth us of a twofold Body of Chri&s;t in the Sacrament: <Q>A true Body and a my&s;tical body: A true body, the &s;ame which he brought out of the Womb of the Virgin; the my&s;tical body, which is <HI>(he &s;aith)</HI> his Church, quickned by his Spirit; Chri&s;t &s;aith of his true body, This is my Bo|dy which is broken for you; of his my&s;tical body the Apo&s;tle &s;aith, We that are many, are one Bread, and one Body: Chri&s;t's true Body is eaten <HI>(he &s;aith)</HI> Sacramentally un|der the &s;pecies; The my&s;tical body is eaten Spiritually by Faith. <HI>He &s;aith,</HI> both good and bad men eat the true Body, but only good men eat it to their Salvation, bad men eat it to De&s;truction:</Q> (<HI>l.</HI> praed. <HI>cap.</HI> 14.)
<PB N="43" REF="26"> Thus far he. But can any one under&s;tand this? The my&s;tical body he &s;aith is the Church, and proves it well from 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 10. But how is this my&s;tical Body eaten Spiri|tually? doth the Church eat the Church? They are both his own phra&s;es, <HI>My&s;ticum quod e&s;t Eccle&s;iae, &mdash;My&s;ticum comeditur Spiritualiter, id e&s;t in fide?</HI> In &s;hort, there can be no eating Damnation or Judgment in the Sacrament, if that which we eat be what he promi&s;ed, <HI>Jo.</HI> 6 (as the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> contend it is.)</P>
<P N="11">11. Further, let us but ob&s;erve what the Scripture telleth us of that Body which Chri&s;t brought with him into the World: We &s;hall find the Scripture de&s;cribing it as a true humane real body, 1. <HI>Made of the Fle&s;h of the Virgin;</HI> that which is <HI>born in thee,</HI> &s;aith the Angel; or if that place did not prove it (I know &s;ome Ancient Here|ticks quarrelled at the form of the expre&s;&s;i|on), yet 1 <HI>Rom.</HI> 3. is plain enough, <HI>He was born of the Seed of</HI> David, <HI>according to the Fle&s;h.</HI> It had <HI>Fle&s;h, and Blood, and Bones;</HI> you &s;ee me have &s;o (&s;aith Chri&s;t,) it was limited by place, it was <HI>here,</HI> not <HI>there;</HI> it had <HI>dimen&s;ions,</HI> it was &s;ubject to <HI>Accidents, Hunger, Thir&s;t, Pain:</HI> Thus the Scripture de&s;cribes to us the Natural Body of Chri&s;t. Now (&s;ay the Papi&s;ts) there is in the Sacrament the Natural Body of Chri&s;t, the &s;ame body which he brought
<PB N="44" REF="27"> with him out of the Virgins Womb, but not &s;ubject to &s;ufferings; that is not all, for, after his Re&s;urrection, his Natural Body was in|deed uncapable of violent impre&s;&s;ions, but we have a <HI>Body</HI> here (if we will believe them) which is not of the Seed of <HI>David,</HI> but either <HI>Created</HI> or made of Bread; which at the &s;ame time can be <HI>here</HI> and there, and in a thou&s;and places, and fill no place, but lie <HI>incognito,</HI> under the accidents of Bread; a Body without dimen&s;ions, without vi&s;ible figure or &s;tature; an humane Body which can be in the place, that, but now, a wafer on|ly fitted, that can be &s;hut up in a box, and carryed about by a <HI>Ma&s;s-Prie&s;t;</HI> was this (think we) &s;uch a Body as the Scriptures de&s;cribe the Body of Chri&s;t brought out of the Womb of the Virgin to have been? or was that Body (as the <HI>Marcionites</HI> and &s;ome other ancient Hereticks affirmed) no <HI>true</HI> Body? but &s;omething which look'd like a Body, and indeed was not &s;o? I can|not po&s;&s;ibly under&s;tand how their u&s;ual re|fuge of the <HI>Divine Omnipotency</HI> can help them here: Omnipotency it &s;elf (as they confe&s;s) cannot work a contradiction, but what is this le&s;s? To make that to be a Bo|dy which remaineth not a Body, even while it is a Body? It is (they &s;ay) that Body of Chri&s;t which he brought with him out of the Virgins Womb; yet plainly you &s;ee it is not that Body which Chri&s;t brought out
<PB N="45" REF="27"> from the Virgins Womb, nor any thing like unto it.</P>
<P N="12">12. Further yet; If this <HI>Doctrine be true, then the Body, which Chri&s;t brought out of the Womb of the Virgin, is proper nouri&s;hment for our bodys.</HI> The &s;trength of this Argument lyeth here; it is certain we eat and drink, in the Supper of the Lord, &s;omething which turns <HI>in &s;uccum &amp; &s;anguinem,</HI> into proper nouri&s;hment for our Bodys: For it is de|mon&s;trable, that a Man or Woman may be nouri&s;hed, and live of only <HI>Bread and Wine</HI> Con&s;ecrated for this admini&s;tration: Now either the <HI>Body of Chri&s;t</HI> is that which nou|ri&s;heth in this ca&s;e, or el&s;e 'tis &s;omething el&s;e: If they &s;ay it is &s;omething el&s;e, we de&s;ire to know what it is; for they all a|gree that the &s;ub&s;tance of the Bread is pe|ri&s;hed. <HI>'Tis turned</HI> (&s;aith <HI>Innocent</HI>) into the Body of Chri&s;t; the Body of Chri&s;t &s;uc|ceeding the place of it (&s;aith <HI>Bellarmine</HI>): So that one way or other that is gone, and nothing of the &s;ub&s;tance of that is left to nouri&s;h us. What is it? if the <HI>Fle&s;h and Blood,</HI> be the Body of Chri&s;t, then the Fle&s;h and Blood of Chri&s;t is proper nouri&s;hment for our Bodys, and con&s;equently mu&s;t be chewed, drank, concocted, dige&s;ted, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> But this they will not allow. Well! what is it then? Some tell us, that <HI>&s;omething is bred of the adjacent aire, and that is it which nouri&s;heth us:</HI> But that (&s;aith <HI>Aquinas,</HI> 3.
<PB N="46" REF="28"> <HI>p. q.</HI> 77. <HI>art.</HI> 5.) appeareth divers ways im|po&s;&s;ible; becau&s;e there appeareth no <HI>change in the aire,</HI> neither is the nature of the aire &s;uch, as to afford matter proportionate. O|thers &s;ay, That when the <HI>Body of Chri&s;t is out of our mouths, the &s;ub&s;tance of Bread re|turneth again;</HI> (this was Pope <HI>Innocents</HI> &s;en&s;e): <HI>Quod a grandi miraculo incepit, in grandi miraculo de&s;init</HI> (&s;aith he); but this is impo&s;&s;ible (&s;aith <HI>Aquinas</HI>), for the &s;ub|&s;tance of the Bread and Wine being turned into the Body of Chri&s;t (he &s;cruples not the word turned), it cannot return without the turning of the Body of Chri&s;t back a|gain into Bread and Wine (which is im|po&s;&s;ible); and if the Body of Chri&s;t &s;hould be there, and that under the accidents of the Bread and Wine, and yet the Bread and Wine return, it mu&s;t be without its accidents (which is all impo&s;&s;ible); &s;ome may &s;ay, new Bread and new Wine is cre|ated, but this is not rea&s;onable (&s;aith <HI>A|quinas</HI>) to affirm any miracle but what floweth from the con&s;ecration. Some &s;ay, the <HI>&s;ub&s;tantial formes</HI> of the Bread and Wine remain, and they nouri&s;h, but (&s;aith <HI>Aquinas</HI> right <HI>qu.</HI> 75.) this is impo&s;&s;ible that the &s;ub&s;tance &s;hould peri&s;h, and the &s;ub&s;tantial forms &s;till remain. It mu&s;t there|fore follow, that the nouri&s;hment we have, I mean the bodily nouri&s;hment which one hath, or may have from the Sacrament, is
<PB N="47" REF="28"> either from the <HI>accidents of the Bread and Wine</HI> (which indeed the wi&s;e&s;t of them &s;ay), but is impo&s;&s;ible; or from the <HI>Fle&s;h and Blood of Chri&s;t</HI> (if this Doctrine were true); &s;o Chri&s;ts Fle&s;h and Blood &s;hould be natural nouri&s;hment for our bodys, for the accidents of the Bread, as the colour, the figure, the meer length, breadth, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> are &s;uch things as experience tell us will not nouri&s;h our Bodys.</P>
<P N="13">13. Add yet further. <HI>If the Bread and Wine in this Ordinance be turned into the Body of Chri&s;t, then is Chri&s;ts Body in part made up of Bread, (baken Bread,) and bread is taken into the Communion of the humane Nature of Chri&s;t; and con&s;equentially into the fellow&s;hip of the &s;econd Per&s;on in the Tri|nity.</HI> I know this reflexion troubles them, for then it is impo&s;&s;ible it &s;hould be the &s;ame Body which he brought out of the Womb of the Virgin: But let us hear how they can quit them&s;elves of this con&s;equence; was that Wafer which the Prie&s;t had in his hands ever Bread or no? Was it not Bread in the Bakers hands? Was it not Bread in the Prie&s;ts hands, until he had pronounced the la&s;t words of Con&s;ecration? They will an&s;wer, yes: What is now become of the nature and &s;ub&s;tance of this Bread? Is it <HI>annihilated,</HI> and the Body of Chri&s;t &s;ub&s;ti|tuted in the &s;tead of it? No (&s;aith <HI>Aquinas,</HI> <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span">. <HI>p. q.</HI> 75. <HI>art.</HI> 3, 4.) for the Body of
<PB N="48" REF="29"> Chri&s;t comes not here by any local motion, but by conver&s;ion of the Bread into his Bo|dy, which could not be if the <HI>Bread were an|nihilated:</HI> And be&s;ides, then there mu&s;t be a new Creation of Bread betwixt the Com|municants mouth and &s;tomach, or el&s;e what &s;hould corrupt in the &s;tomach? what &s;hould nouri&s;h the body? Be&s;ides, if the <HI>Bread</HI> be made nothing, how do their Prie&s;ts <HI>conficere corpus,</HI> make the Body o<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Chri&s;t, which <HI>Gardiner</HI> &s;aith the Fathers held? He mu&s;t then <HI>Create</HI> the Body o<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Chri&s;t, and then the Creature mu&s;t turn<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> Creator. Is it not annihilated, but only tran&s;ub&s;tantiated? Still either the <HI>Bread</HI> and the Body of Chri&s;t, after the Con&s;e|cration, are <HI>one thing,</HI> or two &s;ub&s;tances&punc; Are they two things? how is it then &s;aid<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> <HI>This is my Body?</HI> not <HI>Here is my Bread,</HI> an<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <HI>here is my Body:</HI> Are they but one &s;ub+&s;tance, and yet the &s;ub&s;tance of the Brea<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> not annihilated, the matter not de&s;troyed<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> but only turned? How is this po&s;&s;ible wit<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> out <HI>impanation?</HI> Either the Bread is ma<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> the Body, as the Water was made Wi<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <HI>Joh.</HI> 2. or the Body is made Bread. Th<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Bakers bread is taken into the Communio<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> and fellow&s;hip of the humane Nature<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> Chri&s;t; <HI>Innocent</HI> &s;peaks this out, (<HI>l.</HI> 4.<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> <HI>my&s;t. mi&s;&s;ae. cap.</HI> 19.) <HI>Sicut dicitur Chri&s;tu<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> manducari quia corpus ejus comeditur, ita p<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">+nis credendus e&s;t in ip&s;um mut ari quoni am<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span">
<PB N="49" REF="29"> corpus ejus convertitur.</HI></P>
<P>This is plain Enough, Nor doth <HI>Aquinas</HI> at all mind it; (I know <HI>Bellarmine</HI> is &s;ome|times &s;hy of it, and u&s;eth the Term <HI>&s;uc|ceeds,</HI> but let him then an&s;wer his Bre|thren) <HI>Innocent</HI> &s;aith, <HI>As whole Chri&s;t is &s;aid to be Eaten, becau&s;e his Body is eaten; &s;o Bread is &s;aid to be turned into him, becau&s;e it is turned into his Body.</HI> He doth indeed in|deavour to avoid the latter inconvenience of Bread being taken into the fellow&s;hip of the Divine Nature, (which yet he doth not effect, for there is no eating of the Bo|dy of Chri&s;t but by Faith, which indeed re&s;pects the whole Per&s;on of Chri&s;t, not a &s;ingle Nature,) but you &s;ee he maketh no difficulty of &s;aying that Bread is turned in|to the Humane Nature of Chri&s;t: And how this can be without <HI>Impanation</HI> (that is) taking Bread into the fellow&s;hip of Chri&s;ts humane Nature, will certainly po&s;e any wi&s;e man to phancy. The afore&s;aid Au|thor, therefore, in the &s;ame place doth well to fall off from this inquiry, by telling us, that the Sacraments are to be <HI>adored</HI> not <HI>examined:</HI> But (by his leave) we mu&s;t know what we Wor&s;hip, and not (like the Samaritans) adore we know not what. But let us go on.</P>
<P N="14">14. The Scripture telleth us, that <HI>Chri&s;t took Bread and brake it,</HI> and &s;aid <HI>this is my Body.</HI> This was either all in <HI>reality,</HI> and to
<PB N="50" REF="30"> be taken <HI>literally;</HI> or all <HI>in a figure.</HI> He re|ally took bread, and brake Bread, (that is certain); he &s;aith <HI>This is my Body</HI> which <HI>is broken.</HI> The Bread (&s;ay we) &s;ignified the Body of Chri&s;t, the breaking of the bread &s;ignified the &s;uffering of his Body: No &s;ay they, the <HI>bread</HI> is really the Body of Chri&s;t: Then &s;ay we, the <HI>breaking of the Bread</HI> is really the breaking of the Body of Chri&s;t; then &s;o often as this Sacrament is Admini&s;tred, Chri&s;t really &s;uffereth; for in this Text, <HI>As the Body is to the bread</HI> &s;o is the <HI>breaking to the Suffering:</HI> Then mu&s;t Chri&s;t (who the Apo&s;tle &s;aith died but once) really die &s;o often as this Ordinance is admini&s;tred. This they mu&s;t grant, or give us &s;ome good convincing Rea&s;on, why one term in the &s;ame &s;entence &s;hould be taken <HI>literally,</HI> and the other relating to it <HI>figuratively.</HI></P>
<P N="15">15. Further yet, by this mo&s;t ab&s;urd inter|pretation all the <HI>Sacramental Analogy</HI> and <HI>proportional Similitude is taken away.</HI> There is a double <HI>Analogy</HI> very remarkable whic<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> the Scripture mentioneth in this Ordi|nance.</P>
<P N="1">1. The fir&s;t is between the <HI>Vertue, whic<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Bread and Wine hath in order to the nouri&s;h+ment of the Body; and which the Meritori+ous Sufferings of the Body of Chri&s;t have i<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> order to the nouri&s;hment of the Soul to Lif<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Eternal.</HI> As bread in this Ordinance take<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">
<PB N="51" REF="30"> with the Mouth, &s;wallowed, and dige&s;ted in the Stomach, doth nouri&s;h the body of Man, to the upholding and con&s;ervation of his natural Life; &s;o Chri&s;t's meritorious Death (who being the Eternal Son of God &s;uffered Death in our a&s;&s;umed fle&s;h) ap|prehended by faith, in this Sacramental Exhibition nouri&s;heth the Soul unto Eter|nal Life. Now according to this Interpre|tation, here is no <HI>bread</HI> left; the &s;ub&s;tance of the bread is <HI>annihilated</HI> (&s;ay &s;ome of them), converted &s;ay others into the Fle&s;h and Blood of Chri&s;t; either way this Ana|logy is de&s;troyed.</P>
<P N="2">2. Again, the Apo&s;tle determineth an <HI>Analogy betwixt the Bread, and the My&s;tical Body of Chri&s;t</HI> (which is the Church) 1 Cor. 10.17. <HI>We being many are one Bread</HI> and <HI>one body, for we are partakers of that one Bread,</HI> Divines make the Analogy thus, As many grains of Corn are united in one Loaf or peice of bread, &s;o believers which are many, make one Church meeting to|gether in the Communion of that Ordi|nance; but by the Popi&s;h &s;ence this analo|gy is wholly de&s;troyed, here is no <HI>bread</HI> for many grains of Corn to be united in.</P>
<P N="16">16. Add yet further, The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, is an Ordinance in&s;titu|ted for this end, <HI>to &s;ignifie, &s;eal, and per|fect the &V;nion which is betwixt Chri&s;t and e|very
<PB N="52" REF="31"> truly believing Soul:</HI> therefore <HI>&s;urely the &V;nion betwixt Chri&s;t, and the bread and wine in this Ordinance</HI> is <HI>not a nearer and &s;tricter &V;nion, than that between Chri&s;t and the Soul;</HI> But in the Union which is between the believing <HI>Soul and Chri&s;t,</HI> nei|ther the Soul nor Chri&s;t are tran&s;ub&s;tanti|ated. Chri&s;t is not turned into the &s;ub&s;tance of the Soul, nor is the Soul turned into the Sub&s;tance of Chri&s;t; nor is the Soul anni|hilated, and Chri&s;t &s;ucceeding in&s;tead of it: We abhor tho&s;e Bla&s;phemous Terms of be|ing <HI>Chri&s;ted</HI> and <HI>Godded,</HI> or that Chri&s;t a|bideth under the accidents of our Nature; yet this is that which they &s;ay concerning the Union of the Body of Chri&s;t with the Bread. Yea certainly, they make the Uni|on of Chri&s;t with the Bread &s;tricter then the Union of the two Natures in the Per&s;on of Chri&s;t; for though we &s;ay the Divine Nature taketh to it the humane Nature, yet, neither is the Humane Nature tur|ned into the Divine Nature, nor the Divine Nature turned into the Humane Nature; there is no confu&s;ion of Sub&s;tances, no couching of one Nature under the <HI>&s;pecies</HI> of the other, the Sub&s;tance being de&s;troyed, no &s;ucceeding of one into the place of the other.</P>
<P N="17">17, Further yet, the Sacrament is a <HI>Sign relating not only to the Natural but to the my&s;tical body of Chri&s;t, as I before &s;hew|ed
<PB N="53" REF="31"> and is confirmed from</HI> 1 Cor. 10.16, 17. why &s;hould we not therefore as well &s;ay. <HI>This is the My&s;tical Body of Chri&s;t,</HI> as <HI>This is the Natural Body,</HI> and &s;o the Bread &s;hall either be turned in to the Church: or the whole Church &s;hall couch under the Spe|cies of the bread; then which &s;urely no|thing could be &s;poken more ab&s;urdly, yet with as good Rea&s;on as they &s;peak, and if Divine Power can effect the one it can al&s;o effect the other.</P>
<P N="18">18. Add to the&s;e, In every Sacrament there mu&s;t be Matter and Form, <HI>Verbum &amp; ele|mentum, &s;ignum &amp; &s;ignatum.</HI> The Elements &s;urely are the Matter of the Sacrament; if they be <HI>annihilated,</HI> or <HI>converted,</HI> the mat|ter of the Sacrament is de&s;troyed: there remaineth nothing but the body of Chri&s;t which is the thing &s;ignified, and &s;o the Sa|crament is de&s;toyed and becomes <HI>no Sacra|ment,</HI> it wanting one e&s;&s;ential part. <HI>Bel|larmine</HI> cap. 23. grants that the matter of which the Sacrament is made, is <HI>bread;</HI> which he &s;aith remaineth &s;o far as it is need|full for it as a Sacrament, that is a &s;en&s;ible Sign, (that is) the Accidents remain. But &s;urely it was not the appearence of bread, or the accidents of bread, which are the matter of a Sacrament, the&s;e are not <HI>panci triticeus</HI> (as he &s;aith the matter of the Sacrament is) he &s;aith, the <HI>Sub&s;tance</HI> of bread belongs not at all to the Rea&s;on of the Sa|crament,
<PB N="54" REF="32"> but only the external Accidents of it: But certainly that which Chri&s;t had in his hand when he &s;aid <HI>This is my Body,</HI> belonged to the Rea&s;on of the Sa|crament; and that was &s;ub&s;tantial Bread, not the meer accidents of Bread.</P>
<P N="19">19. Further yet; <HI>Chri&s;t never in&s;tituted that which really could not profit his people:</HI> But <HI>this carnal eating the Fle&s;h, and drinking of the Blood of Chri&s;t could not profit.</HI> Them&s;elves cannot give an in&s;tance of any advantage from the carnal Eating, but what is the true effect of the inner Spiritual Eating the Fle&s;h and drinking the blood of Chri&s;t by Faith. But what need we any further witne&s;s? Chri&s;t him&s;elf telleth us <HI>Jo.</HI> 6.63. <HI>It is the Spirit that quiekneth, the Fle&s;h profiteth no|thing;</HI> (that is) <HI>the eating of his Fle&s;h,</HI> for all along the Chapter he is &s;peaking of ea|ting his Fle&s;h. I know the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> have many Cavils to that Text; &s;ome &s;ay he &s;peaks of the Capernaites Fle&s;h, not of his own; &s;ome of a carnal man, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> But the Text is clear enough to a Reader but of a<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> indifferent judgment, that Chri&s;t, by tho&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> words, doth di&s;prove that gro&s;s and carn<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Sence which the Capernaites had, of eatin<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> the Fle&s;h and drinking the Blood of Chri&s;t and &s;heweth them, that (if that could be it would do none any good.</P>
<P N="20">20. I might la&s;tly add (which our Di<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">+vines do much in&s;i&s;t on), that Chri&s;t neve<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">
<PB N="55" REF="32"> in&s;tituted any thing <HI>Impious and unnatural:</HI> He never de&s;igned to make believers <HI>Can|nibals</HI> or eaters of <HI>Mans Fle&s;h.</HI> But I have in&s;i&s;ted long enough upon this head of Ar|guments, and this particular Argument is &s;poken largly to by a worthy Author in our own Language. I come in the la&s;t place to &s;hew the contradiction of this propo&s;ition to Sence.</P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>Aquinas</HI> &s;aith right of this New Article of their Creed, <HI>Neque &s;en&s;u neque intellectu deprehendi pote&s;t,</HI> (3. <HI>p. q.</HI> 75. <HI>art.</HI> 1.) It can neither be Comprehended by our under|&s;tanding, nor by our &s;en&s;es: But he &s;hould have done well, to have confirmed to us, that the matter of any Article of our Faith, is contrary to our Rea&s;on, and all Evidence of all the Sen&s;es of all men in the World, (which is the pre&s;ent cau&s;e). Propo&s;itions of Di|vine Truth, as to the matter of them, are of various Natures: Some are onely evident upon Divine Revelation, and are purely matters of Faith; Such is the Doctrine of the Trinity of Per&s;ons; That of the Per&s;onal Union of the two Natures in Chri&s;t, &amp;c. They fall not under our &s;en&s;es, and our Rea|&s;on &s;aith, <HI>How can the&s;e things be?</HI> They are above it's reach. But the Word <HI>re|vealeth them</HI> in &s;everal Texts, and reveal|eth nothing contrary to them, and there|fore we believe them. Others are not one|ly clear by plain Scripture, bur ea&s;ily con|cluded
<PB N="56" REF="33"> by rea&s;on, di&s;cour&s;ing conclu&s;ions either from Natural, or Scriptural Princi|ples: Others fall under the cogni&s;ance of Sen&s;e; <HI>That men mu&s;t Dye,</HI> &amp;c. But Here is a Propo&s;ition pretending to no Revelati|on, (but in this text) contrary to multi|tudes of other Scriptures, which rea&s;on concludes again&s;t, both from Natural prin|ciples, and Scriptural foundations; and is &s;o far from being evidenced by Sen&s;e, that there is nothing which our &s;en&s;es more con|tradict. This la&s;t I &s;hall a little open to you in two particulars.</P>
<LIST>
<ITEM>1. <HI>The &s;ame Bread is the object of our Sen|&s;es, both before and after the Con&s;ecrati|on.</HI></ITEM>
<ITEM>2. <HI>No Body is the object of our Sen&s;es af|ter the Con&s;ecration.</HI></ITEM>
</LIST>
<P N="1">1. I &s;ay fir&s;t, <HI>The &s;ame Bread is the object of</HI> our <HI>Sen&s;es, both before and after the Con|&s;ecration:</HI> before the Con&s;ecration we &s;aw it <HI>Bread,</HI> we felt it <HI>Bread,</HI> it had the &s;mell, the ta&s;t of bread, and after the Con&s;ecra|tion, we &s;ee, we feel, we &s;mell, we ta&s;t it &s;o &s;till: and the&s;e are all the Sen&s;es we have by which it is po&s;&s;ible we &s;hould take cogni|&s;ance of it.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>The body of Chri&s;t is not the Object of any of our Sen&s;es after the Con&s;ecration.</HI> Doth any one &s;ee it, or feel it, or &s;mell it, or ta&s;t it? What need we any further Te&s;ti|mony? Surely the Evidence of our Sen&s;es
<PB N="57" REF="33"> in things that fall under the cogni&s;ance of them (as all natural bodies do), is the mo&s;t certain Evidence we can have. The &s;trength of this Argument dependeth upon the Truth of that <HI>Maxime</HI> in Philo&s;ophy, <HI>That the Sen&s;es are not deceived about their proper Ob|jects.</HI> There have indeed been great di&s;|putes about it among Philo&s;ophers hereto|fore; &s;ome maintaining that they could ne|ver err; Others, that there is no certain|ty in them: But the generality of modern Philo&s;ophers maintain, a middle Opinion betwixt the&s;e two Extremes;
<Q>That the judgment of &s;en&s;e is true or fal&s;e, according to the Object, the di&s;po&s;ition of the In&s;trument, and of the mean, and the intention of the Mind.</Q></P>
<P N="1">1. As to the <HI>Object</HI> or <HI>thing perceived,</HI> they &s;ay <HI>there mu&s;t be a due di&s;tance betwixt the Sen&s;e and it;</HI> we &s;ee the Sun, Moon, and Stars, much le&s;s then they are, What is the Rea&s;on? The di&s;tance which is betwixt our Eye and tho&s;e cele&s;tial Bodies. 2. <HI>The Ob|ject mu&s;t be of a due quantity;</HI> &s;ome things are &s;o &s;mall that though they be nigh enough to us we cannot truly di&s;cern them. 3. It mu&s;t <HI>have a ju&s;t po&s;ition.</HI> 4. It <HI>mu&s;t be for &s;ome time before our Sen&s;e</HI> or under it; a tran&s;ient glance of the Eye may mi&s;take its Object. 5 <HI>It mu&s;t not be of that Nature as to offend our Sen&s;e;</HI> for then it hindereth its due operation: The great light of the Sun
<PB N="58" REF="34"> blinds us and confounds our Sight.</P>
<P N="2">2. <HI>Our Organ and In&s;trument of Sen&s;e al|&s;o mu&s;t be in tune:</HI> He who is &s;ick and hath his Palate vitiated with Humours, doth not ta&s;t things as they are; nor the de|&s;ea&s;ed Eye &s;ee things as they are, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> 3. <HI>The Medium by or through which we &s;ee mu&s;t be rightly di&s;po&s;ed and proper:</HI> We have not a true &s;ight of the Sun in mi&s;ty weather, becau&s;e the Air (which is our <HI>Me|dium</HI>) is troubled, nor of a &s;taff in the wa|ter, becau&s;e the water is not the proper <HI>Medium</HI> of &s;ight. 4. La&s;tly <HI>our mind mu&s;t be intent upon the thing.</HI> It is the Soul which &s;eeth by the Eye, ta&s;teth by the Palate, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Now if our mind be intent upon &s;ome thing el&s;e, though our Eye be open, we do not rightly di&s;cern the colour; and though the meat or drink be in our mouth, we may not truly di&s;cern the ta&s;t.</P>
<P>Philo&s;ophers &s;ay, that (except in the&s;e ca&s;es) our Sen&s;es cannot deceive us. But in our ca&s;e it cannot be denied, but the Ob|ject (a natural body) is proper, as to the di|&s;tance, it is near enough; as to the quanti|ty, it is big enough; the po&s;ition of the Object is right; it is &s;ome time before our Sen&s;es, and comes very often under them. Communicants have not all vitia|ted Eyes, or Palates, &s;o there is no fault in the Organ; The <HI>medium</HI> is true and <HI>proper,</HI> we have the Air to &s;ee it in, and it is not
<PB N="59" REF="34"> always mi&s;ty weather; Our minds are in|tent, and the more becau&s;e our Adver&s;aries are &s;o confident that the natural Body of Chri&s;t is there; that they dare torture and burn hundreds of the Servants of God be|cau&s;e they will not &s;ay &s;o too. Now in this ca&s;e if our &s;en&s;es can deceive us, What judgment can we make of any thing in the World? What &s;aith <HI>Bellarmine</HI> to this?</P>
<P>He &s;aith, our Sen&s;es are deceived in <HI>jud|ging of the greatne&s;s of the Stars</HI> of <HI>the figure of a &s;taff in the water</HI> (which there may &s;eem to us crooked when as yet it is &s;treight): but how idle is this? When we &s;ee the Stars at an undue di&s;tance, and the &s;taff by an undue <HI>Medium</HI> can any &s;uch thing be &s;aid in our ca&s;e? He tells us <HI>a pair of green Spectacles will make a thing look green that is not &s;o;</HI> but is not here an undue <HI>Medium? That a vitiated Palat will make &s;weet things ta&s;t bitter;</HI> but what is this to the purpo&s;e? Is every one &s;ick which receives the Sacra|ment, &s;o as he cannot ta&s;t bread from Fle&s;h. He tells us, that <HI>In the Rain-bow we think we &s;ee divers Colours,</HI> when 'tis nothing but light reflected on a Cloud; but is that a due di&s;tance think we? In &s;hort all that he &s;aith with pretence of contradiction to this Argu|ment from Sen&s;e (built upon that Maxime in philo&s;ophy) is this,
<Q>That the Sen&s;es cannot be deceived as to ac|cidents
<PB N="60" REF="35"> which <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">re the &s;en&s;es proper Ob|jects, but about the &s;ub&s;tances they may.</Q></P>
<P>Here he &s;aith, the Sen&s;e is not deceived about the Accidents of bread, for they are &s;o, they are there; but it is deceived as to the &s;ub&s;tance, which is but the Object of the &s;en&s;es by accident; to this purpo&s;e he tells us a &s;tory of a <HI>piece of Wood, brought in his time out of</HI> Syria <HI>to</HI> Room; which many took for Wood, the Figure, the Co|lour, &s;pake it &s;o: Thus he &s;aith we may take Copper to be Gold, and a piece of Ice to be Chri&s;tal; and this he thinks fully enough to an&s;wer the Argument. But how little it is to that purpo&s;e, you will ea&s;ily judge by con&s;idering with me the&s;e follow|ing particulars.</P>
<P N="1">1. That <HI>what he &s;aith is fal&s;e;</HI> if it be not under&s;tood with the aforementioned li|mitations; for in all tho&s;e ca&s;es 'tis mani|fe&s;t, the Sen&s;es may be deceived about ac|cidents.</P>
<P N="2">2. But Secondly, it is enough for us that he &s;aith <HI>The Sen&s;es cannot be deceived about Accidents [their proper Objects];</HI> for if the Body of Chri&s;t be there, it hath certainly its accidents with it. <HI>Durandus</HI> indeed tells us it is there without quantity; but <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;aith it is there with its whole quantity, form, figure, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> Now we can &s;ee none of the&s;e, therefore either the Sen&s;es may be de|ceived about their proper Objects, or Chri&s;ts
<PB N="61" REF="35"> Body is not there (according to <HI>Bellarmine's</HI> own conce&s;&s;ion).</P>
<P N="3">3. But whether meer Accidents be the only proper Objects of all our Sen&s;es, and not &s;ub&s;tances, de&s;erves a little Examinati|on. I know it is commonly &s;aid that <HI>Sub|&s;tantia non incurrit in &s;en&s;um;</HI> but what &s;hall we &s;ay for our feeling? do we onely feel the Accident primarily? We feel the bread betwixt the Teeth, we feel no Fle&s;h: again, the <HI>qualitas tactilis,</HI> the touchable condition or quality of the thing is the ac|cident, and differs plainly in <HI>fle&s;h</HI> and <HI>bread;</HI> now we feel no fle&s;h, and therefore certain|ly there is none there.</P>
<P N="4">4. Again, <HI>Suppo&s;e that our Sen&s;e may be deceived, without the help of another, yet un|der the Te&s;timony of three or four of the&s;e Wit|ne&s;&s;es, &s;hall not a Truth be E&s;tabli&s;hed to us?</HI> We See, we Feel, we Smell, we Ta&s;t it Bread; We See no Body of Chri&s;t, we Feel none, we Smell, we Ta&s;t nothing like a Bo|dy: If the Eye may take Vinegar for Wine, the ta&s;t will correct it; Or if it takes Ice for Chri&s;tal, or Wood for Stone, the Touch or Feeling will rectify it; but here all the Sen|&s;es con&s;pire and tell us 'tis Bread, nothing but Bread, it is no Body; May they all be deceived?</P>
<P N="5">5. But &s;uppo&s;e all our Sen&s;es, pa&s;&s;ing a Judgment upon a thing under their cogni|&s;ance might be deceived <HI>for once, yet will they
<PB N="62" REF="36"> be deceived an</HI> 100 <HI>times about the &s;ame thing?</HI> Let us come to this ordinance not once or twice but an Hundred times, we &s;hall &s;till See, Ta&s;t, Smell, Feel it Bread, and no Body&punc; If Here be any Deception of the Sen&s;es, 'tis four of them together are mi&s;taken, and that not once but an 100 times in the &s;ame thing.</P>
<P N="6">6. And &s;uppo&s;e the Sen&s;es of <HI>&s;ome Per&s;on<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> might deceive them as long as they live about<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"></HI> particular object, yet would <HI>all men's Sen&s;es, or any great Member of men's Sen&s;es deceive them at all times about the &s;ame object?</HI> How many Hundred Thou&s;and Prote&s;tants are there? Yet if one of them in this point be by his Sen&s;es here deceived, all are: Yea, I be|lieve Papi&s;ts too; there are very few In&s;tan|ces in the World of any of them, who wil pretend to <HI>See, Feel, Ta&s;t,</HI> or <HI>Smell a Body;</HI> And as few who will not &s;ay, that which they &s;ee looks like Bread, feels like Bread, &amp;c. How then do they know it is not &s;o? No other way but by <HI>Faith</HI> (they &s;ay), Chri&s;t hath &s;aid <HI>This is my Body:</HI> Well, but Chri&s;t al&s;o &s;aid <HI>This Cup is the New Te&s;tament;</HI> was then t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters"> Earthen, or Silver Cup, the New Covenant? No; but the <HI>Church tells them, This is my Bo|dy,</HI> mu&s;t be taken Literally; but <HI>This Cup is the New Te&s;tament in my Blood</HI> is there, mu&s;t be taken Figuratively: <HI>Venales animas! a<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Servitutem paratas.</HI></P>
<P N="7">7. But yet they might have pretended &s;omething, <HI>If Chri&s;t had not referred the judg|ment
<PB N="63" REF="36"> of the reality of his Body after his re&s;ur|rection to the Judgment of humane Sen&s;es.</HI> Luk. 24.39. When they judged him a Spirit, how doth he rectify their mi&s;take? Doth he tell them he was a <HI>true body,</HI> though <HI>invi&s;ible,</HI> and not to be <HI>felt?</HI> No &s;uch matter. <HI>Naha&s;h the Ammonite</HI> may put &s;uch a Terme of reconcili|ation with I&s;raelites, as to pull out their right Eyes; but &s;aith Chri&s;t <HI>Behold my hands and feet, it is I my &s;elf, handle me,</HI> and <HI>&s;ee me,</HI> for a <HI>Spirit hath neither fle&s;h nor bones as you &s;ee me have.</HI> The&s;e men &s;ay <HI>It is he,</HI> it is Chri&s;ts true Body, but we can neither <HI>&s;ee hands, nor feet, fle&s;h nor bones;</HI> We cannot handle him.</P>
<P N="8">8. How ridiculou&s;ly do they talk of a <HI>Miracle in the ca&s;e?</HI> Yea, many miracles which their <HI>Ma&s;s-Prie&s;ts</HI> work in the ca&s;e, to &s;ay nothing el&s;e in the ca&s;e, <HI>can they &s;hew us in the Scripture an example of any &s;uch miracle, where the Sen&s;es, none of the Sen&s;es, no not four of them working together, Where the &s;en&s;es of Thou&s;ands, working not tran&s;iently, but in ma|ny repeated Acts, cannot di&s;cerne any &s;uch thing?</HI> Certainly this is no Miracle, but one of Antichri&s;t's <HI>Lying Wonders;</HI> Which none can be &s;uch a Sot as to believe, whom God hath not given over either to a <HI>reprobate Sen&s;e,</HI> or to <HI>&s;trong Delu&s;ions</HI> to believe a Lye, <HI>becau&s;e he hath not received the Truth in the Love there|of.</HI> Let us I pray take a veiw of &s;ome Tran|&s;ub&s;tantiating Miracles, which we have in
<PB N="64" REF="37"> &s;acred Record, and &s;ee how they agree with this pretended Miracle: <HI>Lots Wife was turn|ed into a pillar of Salt;</HI> but after this was done, did any &s;ee <HI>Lots Wife yet a live,</HI> or Feel her <HI>Natural Fle&s;h, and Bones?</HI> Or did they <HI>not Se<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"></HI> or <HI>Feel</HI> the <HI>Pillar of Salt,</HI> but on|ly <HI>believe it</HI> while they &s;aw <HI>Lots Wife</HI> yet a|live? Chri&s;t Joh. 2. <HI>Turned Water into Wine;</HI> But what think you when Chri&s;t had done this, did it &s;till, Look, and <HI>Ta&s;t,</HI> and <HI>Feel</HI> like <HI>Water?</HI> Was there in it no colour, ta&s;t, nor &s;mell of Wine? Surely then the Ma|&s;ter of the Fea&s;t wofully flattered the Bride-groom, telling him he had kept the be&s;t Wine till the La&s;t, if at the la&s;t he could nei|ther <HI>Ta&s;t, See,</HI> nor <HI>Smell</HI> Wine there. In all his other Miracles, did not the &s;en&s;es judge? Did not men &s;ee the <HI>Dead rai&s;ed,</HI> the <HI>Lepers clean|&s;ed?</HI> Surely this is an horrid contradiction, to annihilate our Sub&s;tance and to create a|nother to lie hid under the accidents of it; or to turn one Sub&s;tance into another, when ma|nife&s;tly, in the judgment of all the &s;en&s;es por|ing upon the pretendly converted Sub&s;tance, it is yet the &s;ame, and there is no &s;uch other &s;ub&s;tance as it is pretended to be converted to. I know <HI>Bellarmine</HI> &s;aith, the Bread is not <HI>annihilated,</HI> becau&s;e (he &s;aith) it is not <HI>made nothing;</HI> but turned to a Body: but he trifleth, for <HI>as Bread</HI> it is <HI>annihilated</HI> &s;urely; It is made nothing of Bread; It is turned in|to the Body of Chri&s;t, the &s;ub&s;tance of
<PB N="65" REF="37"> bread, is annihilated; but yet <HI>we &s;ee, we ta&s;t,</HI> we <HI>Smell</HI> Bread: Is it turned into a body? we <HI>See,</HI> we <HI>Feel,</HI> we <HI>Ta&s;t no body;</HI> are not the&s;e &s;trange Miracles?</P>
<P N="9">9. La&s;tly (to put an end to this Di&s;|cour&s;e), <HI>what certainty doe the&s;e men leave us of the Truth of any thing under Heaven?</HI> If we mu&s;t not tru&s;t our Sen&s;es, how &s;hall we know there are any &s;uch words in Scrip|ture as <HI>This is my Body?</HI> It may for ought we know be, <HI>This is the &s;ign of my Body.</HI> So that certainly we have better proof, that the Natural Body of Chri&s;t is not in the Sacra|ment, and the bread is not turned into it: For if the judgment of our Sen&s;es be true, it is not the Body of Chri&s;t, it is bread; If that be not true they may read the Scriptures fal&s;e; they cannot be certain there is any Scripture &s;peaks &s;o.</P>
<P>But I have &s;poken enough to &s;hew the mon&s;trous Folly, and Vanity, and Bla&s;phe|my of this Interpretation.</P>
<P><HI>&V;&s;e.</HI> 1. In the fir&s;t place, Let us hence conclude what <HI>horrible Guilt,</HI> of the <HI>mo&s;t gro&s;s and damnable Idolatry,</HI> 2. Horrid <HI>and mo&s;t hideous Bla&s;phemy,</HI> 3. <HI>Innocent blood</HI> and <HI>de|te&s;table Cruelty; cleaveth to the Church of Rome:</HI> And from thence gather an an&s;wer to that now ordinary Que&s;tion, <HI>Whether a per&s;on turning from the Prote&s;tant Church, to the Communion of that Church, may or may not per&s;i&s;t, or dying in that Communion be
<PB N="66" REF="38"> Saved?</HI> There are divers mo&s;t dete&s;table Doctrines (as that of the <HI>Lawfulne&s;s</HI> of <HI>mur|thering Princes by any private Hand, if once the Pope hath Excommunicated them,</HI> &amp;c.) Which when we charge them with, they think they quit them&s;elves of by telling us, they are not the Doctrines of their Church, but the &s;entiment of &s;ome particular <HI>Doctors;</HI> they were never confirmed by the <HI>Pope &amp; a general Council.</HI> But they cannot &s;ay &s;o for this; In the <HI>Councel of Trent</HI> they e&s;tabli|&s;hed the&s;e Canons among&s;t others about it: <HI>Se&s;s.</HI> 13.</P>
<P><LABEL>Can. I.</LABEL> If any deny that the Body, and Blood, and Soul; and Divine Nature of Chri&s;t, (and &s;o whole Chri&s;t,) is not truly, really, and &s;ub|&s;tantially conteined in the Sacrament of the mo&s;t Holy Euchari&s;t, but &s;hall &s;ay that he is only there, as in the &s;igne, or &s;igure, or Vir|tually; Let him be accur&s;ed.</P>
<P><LABEL>Can. 2.</LABEL> If any &s;hall &s;ay, that in the Holy Sacra|ment of the Euchari&s;t, the &s;ub&s;tance of the Bread and Wine remaineth, together with the Body and Blood of Chri&s;t, and &s;hall deny the wonderful and &s;ingular Conver&s;ion of the whole Sub&s;tance of the Bread into the Body, and of the whole Sub&s;tance of the Wine into the blood of Chri&s;t, the &s;pecies onely of Bread and Wine remaining. &mdash; <HI>Let him be accur|ced.</HI></P>
<PB N="67" REF="38">
<P><LABEL>Can. 4.</LABEL> If any &s;hall deny, that when the Con&s;ecrati|on is fini&s;hed, the Body and Bloud of Chri&s;t is not in the admir<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">ble Sacrament of the Eucha|ri&s;t, but onely in u&s;e, while it is taken and not before nor after, and not in the Ho&s;t or Parti|cles, which remain after the Communion, <HI>Let him be Accur&s;ed.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Can. 6.</LABEL> If any one &s;hall &s;ay, that Chri&s;t the onely begotten Son of God, is not to be Wor&s;hipped with an external Divine wor&s;hip in the Holy Sacrament of the Euchari&s;t, and therefore it is not to be Venerated by a peculiar fe&s;tival Celebration, nor to be &s;olemnly carried about, and publikely held out to the People to be Ado|red, according to the univer&s;al Right and Cu&s;tome of Holy Church, and that the ado|rers of it are Idolaters; <HI>Let him be Accur|&s;ed.</HI></P>
<P><LABEL>Can. 8.</LABEL> <HI>If any one &s;hall &s;ay that Chri&s;t held forth in the Euchari&s;t, is to be Eaten only &s;piritual|ly and not Sacramentally and really,</HI> Let him be accur&s;ed.</P>
<P>Here are five Cur&s;es concern us; but they are but the <HI>Popes</HI> and the <HI>Trent Coun|&s;ellers,</HI> but the Apo&s;tle (who&s;e words have far more weight) hath twice cur&s;ed them all, <HI>Gal.</HI> 1.8, 9.</P>
<P REND="indent"><PB N="68" REF="39"><HI>Though we, or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other Go&s;pel unto you; than that which we have Preached to you, <HI>Let him be Accur&s;ed.</HI></HI></P>
<P REND="indent"><HI>As we &s;aid before, &s;o &s;ay I now again, if any man Preach any other Go&s;pel unto you, then that which you have received, <HI>Let him be Accur&s;ed.</HI></HI></P>
<P>Let us be more afraid of the Apo&s;tles, than of the Popes <HI>Anathemaes.</HI> You &s;ee this is the Doctrine of their Church, <HI>That the Bread and Wine is really turned into the Body and Blood of Chri&s;t, That Divine Wor&s;hip is to be given to it,</HI> and <HI>that not only in the Sacrament, but when it is carried a|bout in Proce&s;&s;ion.</HI></P>
<P>Now if (as I have abundantly proved to you) this be but a Dream, and it be <HI>Bread &s;till</HI> which they thus Wor&s;hip, <HI>What gro&s;&s;er Idolatry was ever committed under Hea|ven?</HI> Indeed<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg"><HI>Roffen&s;is</HI> Con|tra. Decol. <HI>l.</HI> 1. cap. 2. &s;ee al&s;o <HI>Co&s;terus Eu|chirid.</HI> Controv. c. 8. p. 300.</NOTE> them&s;elves confe&s;s it.</P>
<P><HI>None can doubt</HI> (&s;aith their great Ma&s;ter Mar|tyr <HI>Fi&s;her,</HI> &s;ome times <HI>Bi&s;hop of Roche&s;ter</HI>), <Q>but if there be nothing but Bread in the Euchari&s;t, the whole Church for fif|teen hundred Years hath been Idolatrous, and as many as have been before us and adored this Sacrament, are all Damned.</Q> You &s;ee he grants the thing,
<PB N="69" REF="39"> that if there be nothing but Bread and Wine, <HI>&amp;c.</HI> they are Idolaters, damnable Idolaters; but for his two Conclu&s;ions, That the whole Church for fifteen hundred Years hath been &s;o, lieth upon his Friends to prove (this Wor&s;hip came in long &s;ince.) or that &s;uppo&s;ing they were Idolaters, eve|ry one mu&s;t be damned (that's another thing to be proved.)</P>
<P>I add, it is not only <HI>guilty of Idolatry,</HI> but the mo&s;t <HI>palpable and gro&s;s Idolatry. I|dolatry is an Errour about the Object of Di|vine Wor&s;hip;</HI> as to which we may &s;ee when we make any thing that is a Creature.</P>
<P N="1">1. Either the <HI>terminative</HI> Object, &s;o as our Wor&s;hip endeth in it.</P>
<P N="2">2. Or the <HI>mediate Object</HI> to which we give a Divine Wor&s;hip, though not ultimate|ly, but through and by it to the true God. This was the Idolatry of the <HI>Golden Calf, Jeroboam</HI> and <HI>Micah.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. Or the <HI>Commemorative Object</HI> (which yet all will not grant Idolatry, though it hath a very ill appearance). As now &s;uppo&s;e when one &s;aw the Sun, he &s;hould pre&s;ently fall down before it or bow, pretending he doth it not to the Sun but to the true God, only he maketh u&s;e of that noble Work of God, to put him in mind of the true God, and of his Homage to him; (as the wi&s;er Papi&s;ts &s;ay, their Images, and Crucifixes only put them in mind of God and Chri&s;t): Rea&s;on
<PB N="70" REF="40"> will tell us, the fir&s;t is <HI>Cra&s;&s;e&s;&s;ema Idolola|tria,</HI> the mo&s;t gro&s;s and apparent Idolatry imaginable; and &s;uch as I doubt whether ever any Barbarians were guilty of (yea le&s;s tho&s;e that wor&s;hipped the ho&s;t of Heaven). The <HI>Sun, Moon,</HI> and <HI>Stars,</HI> being noble and glorious bodys, and at &s;uch di&s;tance from us, as we cannot come to a certain know|ledge of their beings, and their influences &s;o very great and various, might (for ought I know) be mi&s;taken for the <HI>&s;upreme living beings;</HI> but for tho&s;e that wor&s;hipped &s;ub|lunars things, it will never enter into my thoughts that they took them for <HI>God,</HI> the &s;upreme living being; but paid their ho|mage to a <HI>&s;upreme</HI> living being, of which they had no true knowledge, in and by tho&s;e Creatures, in which they &s;aw &s;omething of his life and power exerted. But be that as it will, as to the&s;e Idolaters and this kind of Idolatry, there were certainly de|grees in it; to judge of which this is a good Rule,</P>
<P REND="indent"><HI>By how much any creature is further off from the Divine Nature, and being, and we either do or may with the u&s;e of our &s;en&s;es and rea&s;on know it to be &s;o; by &s;o much the more gro&s;s our Idolatry is, if we give an homage or wor&s;hip to it, which is only due or ought only to be gi|ven to the true God.</HI></P>
<P>We may pitty a blind Heathen, who
<PB N="71" REF="40"> &s;eeing the <HI>Sun or Moon</HI> &s;uch glorious Crea|tures, and ob&s;erving what va&s;t and various influences they have, and being not able to come at them by his &s;en&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">s to di&s;cern what kind of beings they are, nor hath had ingenu|ous Education t<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters">ching him to u&s;e his rea&s;on to make up a judgment of them; &s;hall fancy that they are living beings and Supreme be|ings, and therefore pay a divine homage and adoration to them: But if one &s;hall take a &s;tone, or a piece of wood, or bread, and give a divine homage to that, he is cer|tainly a greater Idolater then the other; becau&s;e he hath advantage by his Sen&s;e and Rea&s;on more to di&s;cern the remotene&s;s of the&s;e things then the other, from any di|vine Being. Tho&s;e two great Prophets, <HI>Jere|miah, Jer.</HI> 10.3. and <HI>I&s;aiah,</HI> derided the Jewi&s;h madne&s;s in their Idolatry thus; <HI>I&s;a.</HI> 44.12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17.</P>
<P><HI>The Smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fa&s;hioneth it with an hammer, and worketh it with the Strength of his Arme.&mdash;The Carpenter &s;tretcheth it out with a rule; he marketh it out with a com|pa&s;s, and &s;iteth it with planes, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, that it may remain in the hou&s;e, he heweth him down</HI> Cedars <HI>and taketh the</HI> Cypre&s;s <HI>and the Oak; which he Strength|neth for him&s;elf among&s;t the trees of the forre&s;t he planteth an A&s;h, and the rain doth
<PB N="72" REF="41"> nouri&s;h it, then &s;hall it be for a man to burn, for he will take thereof and warm him&s;elf; yea he kindleth it and baketh Bread, yea he maketh a God, and wor&s;hippeth it; he maketh a graven Image, and falleth down thereto; he burneth part thereof in the fire, with pa<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="2 letters"> thereof he eateth Fle&s;h; he ro&s;teth ro&s;t, and is &s;atisfied; yea he warmeth him&s;elf, and &s;aith</HI> Aha, <HI>I am warm, I have &s;een the Fire: And the re&s;idue thereof he maketh a God, e|ven his graven Image; he falleth down, and wor&s;hippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and &s;aith Deliver me, for thou art my God.</HI></P>
<P>Let us try to make a parallel a little be|twixt the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> and the&s;e bruti&s;h Idola|ters: The husband man buyeth his &s;eed-wheat, this he &s;oweth in his Field, when it is grown up he moweth or reapeth it with his &s;ithe or &s;ickle, and layeth it in his Barn, where the Mice and Ratts eat a part: the other part he beats out with his flayle, he winnoweth it with a fan, he lays it up in a Chamber; then he carrieth it to the Mill, the Miller grinds it in peices with &s;tones, then the Baker taketh a part, which he worketh with the &s;trength of his Armes, he moulds it, he fa&s;hioneth it, he heateth his Oven with fuell, he puts his dough into his Oven, he with part of it eateth his Fle&s;h ro&s;t or boiled, with part he feeds his fouls, and part of it he carrieth to a Ma&s;s Prie&s;t, he lifts it up with his hands, and
<PB N="37" REF="41"> faith <HI>This is my Body:</HI> pre&s;ently the blind <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> falls down before it, kneels to it, (at the tinkling of a Bell), and cryes out <HI>A God,</HI> and he prays to it, and &s;aith <HI>Deliver me, thou art my Saviour.</HI></P>
<P>Might the Jewi&s;h Idolaters have bin told by their own Sen&s;es, by the Smith and the Carpenter, that their graven Image could be no divine being? and may not the <HI>Pa|pi&s;ts</HI> be told the &s;ame, from the <HI>Husband|man,</HI> the <HI>Thre&s;her,</HI> the <HI>Miller,</HI> the <HI>Baker,</HI> if they had no &s;en&s;es of their own? Oh, <HI>but I hear &s;ome whi&s;pering,</HI> 'tis no Idolatry <HI>be|cau&s;e they think it is the true natural Body of Chri&s;t, and the Scripture &s;eemeth at lea&s;t to &s;ay &s;o. Sol.</HI> The Bi&s;hop of <HI>Roche&s;ter</HI> had more wit then to think any thing of this Na|ture would excu&s;e them; and therefore roundly confe&s;&s;eth, that if there be nothing but Bread in the Euchari&s;t they are damna|ble adolaters. 2. Did ever any Idolaters in the world (think We) when they wor|&s;hipped their Idols not think they wor&s;hip|ped the true God? 3. If any &s;hould fall down and wor&s;hip <HI>every door, every lambe,</HI> &amp;c. thinking they were Chri&s;t, and have|ing the &s;ame colour of Scripture as in this Text, would his <HI>think &s;o,</HI> or the phra&s;e of Scripture, excu&s;e his guilt think we? Surely they ought to think better, to u&s;e their Rea&s;on and Sen&s;es, and to compare Spiritual things with Spiritual: which if
<PB N="74" REF="42"> we doe, judge from what I have &s;aid, whe|ther the <HI>Papi&s;ts</HI> be not as gro&s;s Idolaters a<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> are in the World? Idolatry &s;ure hath mo<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> then a relative being to be mea&s;ured by e+very ones Idle fancy.</P>
<P N="2">2. But <HI>Idolatry is not all their guilt</HI> what you have heard will evince the<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> guilty of <HI>Bla&s;phemy</HI> as well as of Idolatry Is it not Bla&s;phemy to &s;ay, the <HI>Body of Chri<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"></HI> is in part <HI>made up of bread?</HI> &s;o it mu&s;t be if the bread be not annihilated as <HI>Bellar+mine</HI> &s;aith is not, but turned into the fle&s;<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> of Chri&s;t. If they &s;ay a <HI>Prie&s;t can mak<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> the body of Chri&s;t,</HI> If they &s;ay that <HI>The body of Chri&s;t may breed Worms, &amp;c.</HI> Is not thi<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> bla&s;phemy? but indeed they will not &s;ay &s;o <HI>in terminis,</HI> therefore I &s;hall charge them no further.</P>
<P N="3">3. But Oh! what a bloody Synagogu<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> are they! how much of the blood of inno|cents is found in <HI>the Skirts of their whol<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Church!</HI> if this you have heard be true what cruelty are they to be charged with! This was <HI>Bonners</HI> killing que&s;tion in <HI>Queen Marys days, do you believe that the b<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">dy o<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Chri&s;t, that true natural body which he brough<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> out of the womb of the Virgin, is in the Sacra|ment? or that the bread and wine in the Sa|crament is turned into that very body?</HI> And be+cau&s;e tho&s;e <HI>better in&s;tructed</HI> and innocent Servants of God could not &s;ay, <HI>Yes,</HI> They ca&s;t them into coal-hou&s;es and pri&s;ons, hurt
<PB N="75" REF="42"> their feet in the Stocks, fami&s;hed them, burn'd them alive, da&s;hed out their brains with Halbards, filled <HI>England</HI> with inno|cent blood: This very City had its &s;hare; was ever &s;uch cruelty heard of? was ever greater blood-guiltine&s;s &s;ticking to any faction? they &s;pared neither learned nor unlearned, young nor old, men nor women, no not big with child, they had no pitty of the fruit of their bodys: Surely in the skirts of this Synagogue <HI>is the blood of In|nocents.</HI> And alas! how few were the drops of blood &s;hed upon this account in <HI>Eng|land,</HI> in that five years time, to what was &s;pilled before here, and for four or five hun|dred years, in other parts of the World! If the Lord <HI>abhorreth bloody men</HI> (as <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 5.6.) if the blood-thir&s;ty man &s;hall be de|&s;troyed, <HI>P&s;al</HI> 55.22. &s;urely their whole Church mu&s;t be an abomination to the holy God, and their judgment &s;leepeth not; and with a very ordinary Spirit of Prophecy we may cry out to <HI>Rome, Woe to thee thou bloody City, for God &s;hall judge thee.</HI> Surely every good Chri&s;tian that valueth his Soul; will cry out to them, <HI>Depart from me you bloody men:</HI> and we have all rea&s;on to re|peat the P&s;almi&s;ts prayer, <HI>P&s;al.</HI> 59.2. <HI>De|liver us from</HI> [the&s;e] <HI>workers of iniquity, and &s;ave us from</HI> [the&s;e] <HI>bloody men.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. And hence both the <HI>Popi&s;h Prie&s;t,</HI> and our <HI>apo&s;tatized</HI> or <HI>wambling Prote&s;tants,</HI> may make an an&s;wer to that que&s;tion (with
<PB N="67" REF="43"> which they &s;o much trouble un&s;table Souls, <Q>Whether a man may not be &s;aved in the com+munion of the pre&s;ent Church of Rome?</Q></P>
<P>Whether an ignorant per&s;on, walking in the &s;implicity of his heart among&s;t them and having never known better things, n<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> bin able to judge of their abominations, no<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> having had means to know them, &s;ervin<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> God according to his light, may not b<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> &s;aved? may po&s;&s;ibly be a mute que&s;tion<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> But <HI>whether one that hath bin bred up in t<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Prote&s;tant Religion, in the knowledge of th<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Scriptures, and under the clear &s;un-&s;hine o<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> the Go&s;pel, apo&s;tatizing from that profe&s;&s;ion<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> and turning a renegado to them, knowing what they have done, and what they &s;ay, an<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> hold living and dying in their communion, ca<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> be Saved?</HI> is a que&s;tion, in the an&s;wer of which then can be no difficulty: while the Scripture tell us &s;o plainly, that <HI>Idolatry &s;hall never inherit the Kingdome of God,</HI> 1 <HI>Cor.</HI> 6.9. and that <HI>Murderers and Ido|laters &s;hall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and Brim&s;tone, Rev:</HI> 21.8. It is a que&s;tion in the affirmative of which it is fit for none to engage him&s;elf, but he who is prepared to a&s;&s;ert, <HI>That the Scriptures are not the Word of God;</HI> for if they be, their judgment is plain enough, <HI>They cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. And is this now a Religion? Is the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> a Society fit for any <HI>who can read the Scriptures?</HI> Or who hath been
<PB N="67" REF="43"> <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">n&s;tructed in the principles of Religion, to <GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="left margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">oyne him or her Self unto? Have men ne|ver read of the danger of <HI>Idolatry?</HI> Know they not how the Scripture every where compares it to <HI>Whoredome?</HI> Every where denounceth the mo&s;t formidable Judg|ments of God again&s;t it? Have they never read or heard of the cruell Sufferings of our Fore-fathers under the&s;e bloody men? Mu&s;t they voluntarily throw them&s;elves into the Society of tho&s;e who &s;lew tho&s;e faithfull Witne&s;&s;es of God? Doe they under&s;tand the guilt of blood &s;o little; that they will pull upon them&s;elves the guilt of all that blood that hath been &s;hed from the blood of <HI>John Hus</HI> &amp; <HI>Hierom of Prague in Germany,</HI> to the blood of tho&s;e three Men and two Women Martyred at <HI>Canterbury, No.</HI> 10. 1558. (the la&s;t I think in <HI>England</HI> which Died un|der their bloody hands)? If they be wea|ry of their Religion, have they none to joyn them&s;elves unto but the gro&s;&s;e&s;t Idolaters, &s;uch horrid Bla&s;phemers, where the Crea|ture pretends to make his Creator? yea, to make a God of a piece of <HI>Bakers Bread,</HI> and Eat him when they have done? Ah, that any &s;en&s;ual, forelorne Souls &s;hould Sin, to provoke God, to give them over to &s;uch a decree of <HI>impiety,</HI> dotage, and delira|tion. Is that a Religion fit for rea&s;onable man to be of, in which they mu&s;t deny their <HI>Rea&s;on</HI> and <HI>Sen&s;e?</HI> Nay rather let us hear
<PB N="78" REF="44"> the Voice which Saint <HI>John</HI> heard from Hea|ven, Rev. <GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter">8.4, 5. <HI>Come out of her my People that yo<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> be not partakers of her Sins, and tha<GAP DESC="illegible" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 letter"> you receive not of her Plagues: For her &s;in<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> have reached unto Heaven, and God hath re|membered her Iniquities.</HI> And let us all, re|membring the Blood of our Fore-fathers&punc; and the Blood of the Servants, the ble&s;&s;ed Servants of God in other Countries, joyn <HI>our Cryes with the cryes of the Souls of them that were &s;lain for the word of God,</HI> and for the Te&s;timony which they held in this point; and &s;ay, <HI>How long Lord, Holy and True, do&s;t thou not judge and avenge our Blood on them that dwell on the Earth?</HI></P>
<P><HI>&V;&s;e.</HI> 2d. But (to conclude) though the Bread and Wine in the Sacrament be not, (in this horrid and and mon&s;trous Sen&s;e) <HI>the Body and Blood of Chri&s;t,</HI> Yet there is a truth in the&s;e Words, <HI>This is my Body:</HI> They are, in another Sen&s;e, <HI>The Body, and Blood of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. The <HI>Elements</HI> are true <HI>Signs of the Body and Blood of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P N="2">2. The <HI>Ordinance</HI> is a true and admirable <HI>Meanes</HI> by <HI>which the benefit of the Body of Chri&s;t is conveyed to believers.</HI></P>
<P N="3">3. <HI>&V;pon your worthy receiving, you will al&s;o find it a Seal, not</HI> only of the <HI>Righteou&s;ne&s;s of Faith</HI> in the general (that is, of the truth of the Doctrine of the Go&s;pel,) <HI>but of the Righ|teou&s;ne&s;s of Chri&s;t, made over to your Souls, for
<PB N="69" REF="44" MS="y"> the Remi&s;&s;ion of your Sins, upon the exerci&s;e of Faith.</HI></P>
<P N="1">1. I &s;ay fir&s;t, <HI>The Elements are the true in|&s;tituted Signes to &s;ignify and repre&s;ent the</HI> Body <HI>and</HI> Blood <HI>of Chri&s;t.</HI> Thus the Bread is his Body, <HI>The Cup</HI> (the <HI>Wine in the Cup</HI>) is his Blood; as it is &s;aid of the &s;prinkling of the Lintell, and the two &s;ides of the Po&s;ts of the <HI>I&s;raelites</HI> Hou&s;es, Ex. 11.27. <HI>It is the Sacra|fice of the Lords Pa&s;&s;over;</HI> and of their <HI>Eating the Lamb, v.</HI> 11. <HI>It is the Lords Pa&s;&s;over:</HI> as it is &s;aid, Chri&s;t <HI>is the true Vine, the good Shep|heard, Manna,</HI> &amp;c. Here in a Figure Chri&s;t <HI>is Crucified</HI> before your Eyes; and this call|eth to you.</P>
<P N="1">1. For your renewed Exerci&s;es of <HI>Repen|tance:</HI> Oh! <HI>Let your Eye affect your Heart;</HI> how will you look upon him whom you have Peirced, and not Mourn?</P>
<P N="2">2. For your <HI>exerci&s;e of Faith,</HI> which is the <HI>Evidence of things not &s;een.</HI> That is the Eye which in the Ordinance mu&s;t pa&s;s through the Vaile of the Figures.</P>
<P N="3">3. And for <HI>Love:</HI> Greater love than this can no man &s;hew, then to Die for his Friend. Chri&s;t you &s;ee hath Died for you, while yet you were Enemies: his blood was the blood of Reconciliation; O love the Lord all yea his redeemed ones.</P>
<P N="2">2dly. The <HI>Ordinance is a &s;acred Admirable meanes In&s;tituted by Chri&s;t by which the vertue and effects of his Death (&s;o far as they concern
<PB N="80" REF="45"> a Chri&s;tians growth and proficiency in Gra<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> is really Conveyed and made over and g<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">+ous to the believing Soul; &s;o as the<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> Spiritually, and by Faith in it doth truly<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> the Fle&s;h and Drink the Blood of Chri&s;t.</HI></P>
<P>This Eating profiteth the Soul, <HI>the F<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> profireth nothing</HI> (as you have heard <HI>Joh.</HI><GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> 63.) This calleth to you to Open your Mou<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> wide that <HI>Christ may fill them,</HI> to come w<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> <HI>Hungry and Thir&s;ty Souls;</HI> with <HI>de&s;ire</HI> (<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> our Saviour) <HI>I have de&s;ired to Eat the Pa<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> over with you,</HI> with what De&s;ires &s;hould<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"> come to Chri&s;t in this Ordinance which<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters">+ceedeth that Pa&s;&s;eover. For <HI>Chri&s;t our Pa&s;&s;+over is Sacrificed for us.</HI> Surely every go<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Chri&s;tian &s;hould be able to &s;ay, Lord! wi<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> de&s;ire have I de&s;ired to come to thy H<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Table, that I might remember thy dyin<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Love; that I might grow in Strength, u<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Duty, again&s;t Sin, and Temptations, an<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> &s;o in all Grace.</P>
<P N="3">3. La&s;tly, It is a <HI>Seal</HI> to the true Believer as a Confirmation of the Truth of the Go&s;|pel, &s;o a Seal of the righteou&s;ne&s;s of Faith, im|puted to every particular repenting and be+lieving Soul, who hath <HI>pretus praeparatum<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1 span"></HI> prepared Heart: And this la&s;tly minde us, how much it is all our Concern accord|ing to the Apo&s;tles Precept, <HI>To examin<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> our Selves, and &s;o to come to Eate of th<GAP DESC="illegible" REASON="right margin cropped or obscured" RESP="MURP" EXTENT="1+ letters"> Bread, and to Drink of this Cup.</HI></P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
