« VorigeDoorgaan »
Objection 2. If you deny Transubstantiation, and i Christ's corporal Presence, you make the Sacrament nothing but bare Bread.
Answer 1. Our denying the strange and new Learning of Transubstantiation, and making it known, that Bread and Wine, is Bread and Wine, ought not to fix that Charge upon us which these Romilh Doctors infinuare, for we both think, and speak with Reverence of these holy Mysteries. And as we cannot call them more than they are, so we do not esteem them lefs than they are by the Ordinance and loftitution of Christ. We do not make them bare or naked Tokens, but we say they are changed, as to their Virtue ; and that they have a Dignity, and Pre-eminence, which they had not before : That they are not pow common Bread, or common Wine, bui the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Chrift; Signs and Seals of the Benefit of Christ's Body crucified, and his Blood shed ; a Testimony unto our Conscience, that Christ is the Lamb of God; a certain Pledge and Seal, and sufficient Warrant of God's Promises, whereby God bindeth himself to us, and we stand likewise bound to God, so as God is our God, and we are his People:
2dly, Io Baptism, the Nature and Substance of the Water remains, and yet it is not bare Water ; it is changed and made the Sacrament of our Regeneration : It is Water confecrated and made Holy by Christ's Appointment: This outward walking, is a sign and Seal of the : inward and spiritual: One Thing is leen, and another believed: We see the Water, but we understand the Blood of Chrift: So we see the Bread and Wine, but we look beyond these Creatures : Our believing Mind is raised to Heaven, and there we behold the Ransom and Price of our Salvation, the crucified Body of Chrift, which is now glorified...
Thirdly, To manifest the horrid Consequences of this false Dcetrine is our present Task.
1, 'Tis a known Axiom, Quicquid fit, quando fit, non fuit ante; whatsoever is made, was not, before it was made. But Papists say, Christ's Body is made by the Priest's pronouncing the Words of Consecration; (that is, it he has an Intent to make it) but it. Chrift's Body be made of Bread, (as it must be, it the whole Substance of the Bread be turned into the Body) so as that Christ comes to be entirely contained in the Eucharist, after the Confecration, then Christ's Body was not before, which destroys the whole Foundation of the Christian Faith.
2dly, To believe the real carnal Body of Chrift to be in the Sacrament, implies, that the holy Body of Christ may mold and putrify, and turn to Corruption, and be eaten, not only of finful Men and Reprobates, but also, by Vermin, as Mice, Rats, donc. which 18 blasphe
3dly, If the consecrated Bread be such real Body of Christ, then was Christ his own Executioner, laying violent Hands on his own precious Body, before either Fudas betray'd, or the Jews killed him, which is an Horror to any, who owns the Name of Christian to imagine.
4thly, How strangely unreasonable is it to fancy, that our blessed Saviour fhou'd just before his Suffering, exhibit his Body to his Disciples, (Thomas among the rest) in such a Form, as they cou'd not by any of their Senses perceive it to be his Body; and yet immediately after his Resurrection, to convince the fame Thomas's Doubts, bids him touch and handle him for his Satisfaction. Were the Popish Tenet true, Thomas might readily have reply'd, I lately receiv'd the very Body of my Lord in my Hand, and in my Mouth, and Stomach,
yet cou'd not perceive therein either. Flesh or Bone; how thea fall shy now offering me to handle thee, be any Conviction to me, that thou art really my Lord, risen from the Dead. Which brings us to the last horrid Consequence, which is,
That as the same is not only utterly above, but against all Sense and Reason, so likewise it under. mines and destroys the very basis of the Christian Religion: For the main Argument which the Apostles used to convince the World of Christianity was this; blessed Saviour wrought such and such Miracles, and particularly,that he rose from the Dead. And this they proved, because they wereEye-witnesses,and sealed this their Testimony with further Miracles, which the People daiiy beheld: Suppose then (as Papists do) Transubstantiation to have been one principal part of the Christian Doctrine, which the Apostles preached. If this Doctrine be true, then all Men's Senses are deceived, in as plain a sensible Matter, as any in the World: For what more different than a Bit of Wafer, and the whole Body of a Man. so that, persuading Men to believe this Doctrine, perfuaded them not to believe their Senses; and yet the Argument they used, was built on a directly conerary Principle; for it their Senses were not to be trusted, bow shou'd they be assurd of these Miracles ?. If therefore the Teftimony of Sense be to be rely'd on, then Transubstantiation is false ; if it be not, then how is any Man sure, that Christianity is true? Or how are the Papists certain, that there are any such Words in their vulgar Bible, as Hoc est Corpus meum? Or that there is any Bible at all in the World?
Lastly, The Difference between the Body of Christ, and the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, is briefly this: A Sacrament is a Figure or Token; the Body of Christ is figured or tokened : The Sacrament Bread is. Bread, and it is not the Body of Christ : The Body of Christ is Flesh, and it is no Bread: The Bread is here
below, the.Body of Christ is above : The Bread is on the Table, the Body of Christ is io Heaven : The Bread is in the Mouth, the Body of Christ is in the Heart, (a) By Faith ot its being crucified, and offered a Sacrifice, well pleasing to God: The Bread feedeth the outward Man, the Body of Christ feedech che inward Man: The Bread feedeth the Body, the Body · of Christ teedeth the Soul: Thé Bread may be eaten by Mice, and come to nothing; the Body of Christ is immortal, and shall not perilh : The Bread is vile, earthly, and corruptible; the Body of Chrift is glo rious, and immortal, and incorruptible: Sach a Difference is there, between the Bread, which is the inftituted Sign or Representation of the Body, and the Body of Christ it self: The Sacrament is eaten as well of the Wicked as of the Faithful, the Body of Christ is only earen of the Faithful, apprehending and affuring to them. selves the Blessings and Benefits procured by his Death: The Sacrament may be eaten unto Judgment, but the Body of Christ cannot be eaten; but unro Salvation : Without the Sacrament we may be saved, but without the Body of Christ believed to be given for us, we have no Salvation, we cannot be sayed.
Such a Difference maketh Epiphanius, (b) * This
Thing, (that is, the Sacrament) is of a round Form, (for it was a great thick round Cake)
“ And touching “any Power that is in it; utterly void of Senfe, but
we know that our Lord is whole Sense, whole Sen« fible, whole God, whole Moviog
And for the Difference of them, St. Auftin faith, (c) “ The Sacrament (of Christ's Body) is received of Torue. unto Lite, ot some unto Destruction. But
(a) Eph. 2. (b) Epiph. in Ancor. (c) Trait. 26 in Foa.
“ the Thing it self (that is, the Flesh of Christ) where“ of this is a Sacrament, is received of all Men unto « Life, and of no Man unto Destruction, whosoever « shall be partaker of it.”
Thus we are plainly taught by the learned Catholick Fathers, to put a Difference between the Body of Chrift, and the Sacrament of the Body of Christ, and that the one is not really lapped up, or shut within the other : That the one, as Epiphanius faith, is utterly void of Sense, the other, whole Sense, and whole Sensible. That the one is received to Destruction unto fome, as St. Auftin faith, The other is received of all Men-un