1. IN this Chapter I ſhall prove that Jeſus Chriſt ſpeaks of a ſpiritual eating and drinking by Faith, and not of a corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body. My firſt Argument is this. When a man would ſatisfie his hunger, and quench his thirſt, he eateth, and drinketh that thing, which he hungers and thirſts after; becauſe eating ſatisfieth hunger, and drinking quencheth thirſt: But it is by Faith, that is, by believing in Jeſus Chriſt, that we ſatisfie the hunger, and quench the thirſt which we have after Chriſt; for it is in the ſixth of St. John, He that cometh to me ſhall never hunger, and he that believeth in me ſhall never thirſt: Therefore it is by Faith or by believing, that we eat and drink Jeſus Chriſt; and conſequently the eating of Chriſt fleſh, and drinking his bloud is ſpiritual, and not corporal.

2. My ſecond Argument is this: Jeſus Chriſt ſaith, He that eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my blood hath eternal life. And except ye eat the fleſh of the Son of man▪ and drink his bloud, ye have no life in you, John 6. But it is the ſpiritual eating and drinking by Faith that gives life eternal, and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth of the body; becauſe many Reprobates (according to the very doctrine of Rome it ſelf) do corporally eat the fleſh, and drink the bloud of Chriſt, and yet ſhall not inherit eternal life.

3. The third Argument is taken from S. Auguſtine, and Cardinal Cajetan, who expound the words of Jeſus Chriſt as we do. St. Auguſtin in Book 3. of Chriſtian Doctrine, ſpeaketh thus, To eat the fleſh of Chriſt is a figure, teaching us to partake of Chriſts Paſſion, and to imprint in our memories with delight and profit, that Chriſt was crucified for us. Card. Cajetan in his Commentary on St. John 6. ſaith, To eat the fleſh of Chriſt, and drink his bloud, is faith in Chriſts death; ſo that the ſenſe is this, if you uſe not the death of the Son of man as meat and drink, ye ſhall not have the life of the Spirit in you. And having ſufficiently proved his Expoſition, he adds: To eat and drink the Sacrament is a thing common, as well to thoſe that eat unworthily, as to thoſe that eat worthily, but that which Jeſus Chriſt here ſpeaks of, is not common to both, for he ſaith, he that eateth my fleſh, and drinketh my bloud, hath eternal life; he ſaith not he that eateth worthily and drinketh worthily, but he that eateth and drinketh. Whence it clearly appears, that according to the Letter, he ſpeaks not of eating, and drinking the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, but of eating and drinking the death of Jeſus Chriſt.

4. Now that we may clearly underſtand this doctrine, we muſt conſider, wherein the life which Jeſus Chriſt gives us, doth conſiſt; for ſeeing the fleſh of Jeſus Chriſt is meat to us, becauſe it gives us life; it is evident that if we know what life what life that is which Jeſus Chriſt gives us, we muſt know likewiſe how Jeſus Chriſt is meat to us, and conſequently how we eat him. But to know what that life is which Jeſus Chriſt gives us, we muſt conſider what that death is in which we were involved, which is expreſſed by St. Paul, Epheſ. 2. in theſe words: When we were dead in ſins and treſpaſſes God hath quickned us together with Chriſt: by grace ye are ſaved; and conſequently the death in which we were involved, conſiſts in two things, firſt in the curſe of the Law, which imports the privation of felicity, and the ſuffering of temporal and eternal puniſhment for our ſins: Secondly it conſiſts in an habitual corruption, whereby ſin raigns in us; and therefore it is ſaid 1 Tim. 5. The widow that lives in pleaſure is dead while ſhe liveth. Alſo ſins are called dead works, Heb. 10. So that the life which Jeſus Chriſt hath purchaſed for us, conſiſts in two things. Firſt, In deliverance from the curſe of the Law by the pardon of our ſins, as St. Paul tells us, Colloſſ. 2. God hath quickned you together with Chriſt, having forgiven you all treſpaſſes, blotting out the obligation that was againſt us; which obligation proceeded from the Law, becauſe it did oblige all the tranſgreſſors of it to a curſe. Secondly, It conſiſts in regeneration, or ſanctification, whereof Jeſus Chriſt ſpeaking in John 3. ſaith, Except a man be born again he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God: and S. Paul Heb. 12. Without holineſs no man ſhall ſee the Lord. Therefore ſeeing that the life which Jeſus Chriſt hath purchaſed for us, conſiſts in the pardon of our ſins▪ and in our regeneration, and ſanctification, which ends in glorification; and that Jeſus Chriſt is called meat in reference to this life, we muſt conſider the means, whereby Jeſus Chriſt hath purchaſed theſe things for us; and ſeeing it is certain, that his death is the means by which he hath purchaſed pardon of ſins, and regeneration, we muſt conclude that Jeſus Chriſt is the food and nouriſhment of our ſouls in regard of the merit of his death. But that Jeſus Chriſt by his death hath purchaſed life for us, (that is juſtification, which conſiſts in the pardon of our ſins, and regeneration, which conſiſts in holineſs of life) appears by theſe paſſages of Scripture viz. We are juſtified by the bloud of Chriſt, and reconciled to God by his death, Rom. 5. We have redemption by his bloud, even the remiſſion of ſins. Epheſ. 1. He hath reconciled us in the body of his fleſh by his death, that he may preſent us holy, without ſpot, and blameleſs in his ſight. Coll. 1. We are ſanctified by the offering of the body of Jeſus Chriſt once for all. Heb. 10. Chriſt loved the Church, and gave himſelf for it, that he might ſanctifie and cleanſe it with the waſhing of water by the word, that he might preſent it unto himſelf a glorious Church, &c. Eph. 5. Therefore ſeeing Jeſus Chriſt hath purchaſed life for us by his death, and that his fleſh and bloud are our meat and drink (becauſe they purchaſed life eternal for us on the Croſs, viz. the remiſſion of our ſins, and ſanctification, ending in glorification) it follows that the action whereby Jeſus Chriſt is applied to us for righteouſneſs and ſanctification, is the ſame by which we eat the fleſh of Chriſt, and drink his bloud. But this action is nothing elſe but Faith, as the Scripture tells us: Being juſtified by faith we have peace with God. Rom. 5. God purifies our hearts by faith. Act. 15. He that believeth hath eternal life. Joh. 6. From what hath been ſaid I form this Argument. That Action whereby we obtain remiſſion of ſins, and ſanctification, ending in glorification, is the ſame, whereby we have that life, which Jeſus Chriſt hath purchaſed for us by his death; becauſe that life principally conſiſts in the remiſſion of ſins, and ſanctification, as we have proved. But the ſpiritual eating, and drinking by faith, and not the corporal by the mouth, is that action, whereby we obtain remiſſion of ſins, and ſanctification, as we have alſo proved. Therefore the ſpiritual eating and drinking by faith is the action, whereby we have that life, which Jeſus Chriſt hath purchaſed for us by his death, and not the corporal eating and drinking by the mouth. And conſequently ſeeing in St. John 6. a certain eating and drinking is ſpoken of, whereby we have that life which Jeſus Chriſt hath purchaſed for us by his death; it is evident that a ſpiritual eating and drinking is there ſpoken of, and not a corporal.

5. From what hath been ſaid it appears, that when Jeſus Chriſt ſaith, my fleſh is meat indeed, &c. the figure falls upon the word meat, which is taken not for corporal but ſpiritual meat. The reaſon whereof is, that corporal food is that which is appointed for the nouriſhment of the body, as ſpiritual food is that which is appointed for the nouriſhment of the ſoul; ſo that although corporal food be taken by the mouth of the body, yet that only doth not make it to be corporal food, except it be taken for the nouriſhment of the body; otherwiſe poiſon, medicine, a bullet, &c. which a man ſhould ſwallow would be corporal food; which is abſurd to affirm. But the fleſh of Chriſt, which is pretended to be eaten in the Euchariſt by the mouth of the body, is not appointed for the nouriſhment of the body; becauſe that food which is appointed for the nouriſhment of the body is changed into the ſubſtance of the body: but the body of Chriſt is not changed into the ſubſtance of our bodies: Therefore the fleſh of Chriſt is not a corporal food, but his fleſh broken, and his bloud ſhed on the croſs is a ſpiritual food, which nouriſheth the ſouls of thoſe, who by a true and lively faith, do embrace this fleſh broken, and this bloud ſhed; that is, who do wholy reſt and rely on the merit of his death and paſſion for obtaining mercy from God. And certainly, ſeeing that the life which Jeſus Chriſt gives us by his death, is ſpiritual, that the nouriſhment is ſpiritual, that the eating his body and drinking his bloud, is ſpiritual (as hath been proved) it follows that his fleſh muſt be ſpiritual meat, and his bloud ſpiritual drink. And this fleſh of Chriſt is incomparably better, and more truly meat indeed in regard of its effects, than corporal food can be; becauſe it doth better, and more perfectly nouriſh the ſouls of Believers then corporal food doth their bodies; this being corruptible food which gives temporal life only; but that ſpiritual and incorruptible food which gives life eternal.

6. I conclude this Chapter with this conſideration. When a doctrine is propoſed which is pretended to be divine, and that paſſages of holy Scripture are alledged for the proof of it, if it oppoſeth, or ſeems to oppoſe ſenſe and reaſon, and to include contradictions; and that a more ſuitable and rational ſenſe can be found out for thoſe paſſages, ſo that all theſe inconveniences and contradictions may be avoided; there is nothing more juſt than that we ſhould embrace that probable and rational ſenſe, and reject that doctrine which oppoſeth ſenſe and reaſon and ſeems to imply contradictions: But the doctrine of the real preſence of the Manhood of Jeſus Chriſt in the Hoſt, and the tranſubſtantiation of the Bread into his Body, is repugnant to ſenſe and▪reaſon, and ſeems to include divers contradictions; (viz. that a humane body is in a point without any local extenſion, that a body may be in divers places at one and the ſame time, that the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood of Chriſt, which were before; that accidents may be without a ſubject, &c.) And the paſſages that are impertinently alledged to prove ſuch a preſence, and ſuch a change, have a ſenſe very commodious and rational, for the avoiding all theſe contradictions, as appears in this and the former Chapter, where I have very rationally expounded thoſe two paſſages which the Romiſh Doctors impertinently make uſe of for this ſubject. Therefore they ought to embrace that commodious and rational ſenſe which we have given them; and to reject the doctrine of the real preſence of the body of Jeſus Chriſt in the Hoſt, and the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation.

1. TRanſubſtantiation is the ſubſtantial converſion of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, which I deſtroy by divers Arguments; the firſt whereof is this:

In every ſubſtantial converſion, that thing into which another thing is converted, is always newly produced. For example, when ſeed is converted into an animal, that animal is newly produced; when Jeſus Chriſt turned the water into wine, the wine was newly produced, &c. But the Body and Bloud of Chriſt cannot be newly produced in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt: Therefore the Bread and Wine are not ſubſtantially converted into the Body and Bloud of Chriſt in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt. The ſecond Propoſition, viz. that the Body and Bloud of Chriſt cannot be newly produced, I prove thus: That which is newly produced receives a new being; becauſe to produce a thing, and to give it a being is one and the ſame: But the Body and Bloud of Chriſt cannot receive a new being, which I prove thus: A man cannot receive ••• t which he hath, while he hath it, and therefore he cannot receive a being while he hath a being; for as it is impoſſible to take away a being from that which hath no being; ſo it is impoſſible to give a being to that which hath a being already: and as you cannot kill a dead man, ſo you cannot give life to one that is living▪ But the Body and Bloud of Chriſt have, and always will have a being: Therefore they cannot receive one, and conſequently cannot be reproduced in the Euchariſt.

2. My ſecond Argument is this. In every ſubſtantial converſion, that thing which is converted into another is deſtroyed. For example, When the water was turned into wine, the water was deſtroyed: But in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt the Bread and Wine are not deſtroyed by the conſecration▪ which I prove thus: In the celebration of the Euchariſt there is breaking, giving, eating and drinking after the conſecration, as appears by the very practice of our Adverſaries, who after conſecration, break the Hoſt, and divide it into three parts, give nothing to the Communicants but conſecrated Hoſts▪ and eat and drink nothing but what was conſecrated: But the Scripture ſaith, that in the celebration of the Euchariſt, Bread is broken, that Bread and Wine are given, and that Bread is eaten and Wine drunk, as appears by theſe following paſſages. St. Paul 1▪ Cor. 10. ſaith, The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Chriſt? and 1▪ Cor. 11. St. Matth. 26. St. Mark 14. and St. Luke 22. it is ſaid that Jeſus Chriſt took bread, brake it and gave it; and St. Mark 14. and St. Matth. 26. Jeſus Chriſt after he had participated of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, ſaith, I will drink no more of this fruit of the Vine: and 1 Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup. Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.

3. Secondly, When Jeſus Chriſt ſaid to his Diſciples, Drink ye all of this, St. Matth. 26. that is, drink ye all of this cup, either he commanded to drink of a cup of Wine or of a cup of Bloud: if he commanded them to drink of a cup of Wine, then it follows that they drank nothing but Wine, becauſe it is certain that they obeyed Jeſus Chriſt; for it is ſaid St. Mark 14. that they all drank • f it. Or if he commanded them to drink of a cup of Bloud, then it follows that the Wine was already changed into his Bloud, becauſe it is not probable that Jeſus Chriſt ſaid to them Drink ye all of this cup of Bloud, and yet that it was not a cup of Bloud, but a cup of Wine. But when Jeſus Chriſt ſaid, Drink ye all of this, he did not ſpeak to them of a cup of Bloud for the Wine was not then converted into Chriſts Bloud, becauſe (according to our Adverſaries) it was not changed until Jeſus Chriſt had made an end of uttering theſe following words, for this is my bloud. But he uttered theſe words, Drink ye all of this, before he uttered thoſe, for this is my bloud; becauſe a man muſt utter a Propoſition before he can give the reaſon of it.

4. Thirdly, When a thing is converted into another, we cannot ſee the effects and properties of the thing converted, but only of that into which it is converted. For example, When the ſeed is changed into an animal, we can ſee no more the effects and properties of the ſeed, but of the animal only; and when Jeſus Chriſt turned the Water into Wine, the effects, properties, and accidents of the Water were no more ſeen▪ but of the Wine only, &c. But in the Euchariſt we cannot, after the conſecration, perceive the effects, properties, accidents, or parts of the Body and Bloud of Chriſt; but we ſee there all the effects, properties, and accidents of Bread and Wine: Therefore in the Euchariſt, the Bread and Wine are not converted into the Body and Bloud of Chriſt. And the truth is, if that which appears to be Bread, and hath all the effects, accidents, and properties of Bread, be not Bread, but Chriſts Body cloathed with the accidents of Bread; then it may likewiſe be ſaid that they that appear to be men, and have all the effects, properties, and accidents of men are not men, but horſes cloathed with the accidents of men.

5. The fourth Argument is this. In every ſubſtantial converſion there muſt be a ſubject to paſs from one ſubſtance to another; for then it would be a Creation, which is the ſole action that doth not preſuppoſe a ſubject. But in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, after the conſecration, there is no ſubject; becauſe, according to our Adverſaries, there remains no ſubject; for, as they aſſert, the accidents of Bread and Wine remain without any ſubject at all: Therefore in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt there is no ſubſtantial converſion.

6. The fifth Argument is drawn from hence, That Tranſubſtantiation deſtroys the nature of accidents, thus. That doctrine which aſſerts that accidents are not accidents but ſubſtances, deſtroys the nature and eſſence of accidents, becauſe it is impoſſible that an accident can be a ſubſtance. But the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation aſſerts that accidents are not accidents, but that they are ſubſtances, which I prove thus. That doctrine which aſſerts that accidents are not inherent, but that they ſubſiſt of themſelves, doth aſſert that accidents are not accidents, but that they are ſubſtances, becauſe inherence is the eſſential difference of an accident, and ſubſiſtence the eſſential difference of a ſubſtance. But the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation aſſerts that accidents are not inherent, but that they ſubſiſt, which I prove thus. That doctrine which aſſerts that accidents may be without a ſubject, viz. the accidents of Bread and Wine without any ſubſtance, and without any ſubject to ſuſtain them; for by Tranſubſtantiation the ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine is gone, and their accidents remain: Therefore the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation aſſerts that accidents are not inherent, but do ſubſiſt by themſelves, and conſequently aſſerts that accidents are not accidents, but ſubſtances, and ſo deſtroys the nature and eſſence of accidents. But here it may be ſaid that actual inherence doth not conſtitute an accident, but aptitudinal only. Againſt which I form this Argument. Whatſoever doth exiſt actually, either it exiſts in ſomething elſe actually ſo, that it cannot be without it, which Philoſophers call actual inherence, as walking: or elſe it exiſts in and by it ſelf actually, ſo that it may be alone by it ſelf, which Philoſophers term actual exiſtence; the former of theſe conſtitutes an accident, and the latter conſtitutes a ſubſtance. But the accidents of the Bread and Wine, after conſecration, do exiſt actually: Therefore they muſt exiſt either in ſomething elſe actually, or in themſelves actually. But they do not exiſt in and by themſelves actually, for then they would ſubſiſt by themſelves, and be real ſubſtances, which is impoſſible: Therefore they exiſt in ſomething elſe actually, viz. in the ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine, and conſequently the ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine remains after the Conſecration, and ſo there can be no Tranſubſtantiation.

7. The ſixth Argument is drawn from this, That Tranſubſtantiation deſtroys the nature of Sacraments, becauſe every Sacrament is a viſible ſign of an inviſible grace, as the Council of Trent ſaith in Seſſ. 6. and every ſign relates to the thing ſignified, ſo that we muſt ſpeak of ſigns and Sacraments, as of things relating to ſomething elſe. But all relative things have, as it were, a double being, viz. an abſolute being which is the natural being of the thing, and a relative being whereby it relates to ſomething elſe. For example, In a man that hath begotten a child, we conſider his abſolute and natural being as he is a man as others are, and his relative being, whereby he is a Father, and is diſtinguiſhed from other men that have no children, and ſo are not Fathers. So in the Sacrament of Baptiſm, the ſign, viz. the Water, hath an abſolute and natural being, viz. its cold and moiſt ſubſtance, whereby it is water as other waters are; and a relative, ſacramental, and ſignificative being, whereby it is the ſign and Sacrament of Chriſts Bloud, and differs from other waters that are not imployed for this ſacred uſe. Even ſo in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, the Bread and Wine, which are the ſigns, have their natural and abſolute being, viz. their ſubſtance whereby they are Bread and Wine, as other Bread and Wine, which we commonly uſe; and their relative, ſacramental, and ſignificative being, whereby they are the Sacrament and ſigns of the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, and differ from all other Bread and Wine that is not thus imployed. To this I add, That it is impoſſible a relative being ſhould be without an abſolute, becauſe a relative cannot be without its foundation. For example, It is impoſſible to be a Father without being a Man; to be equal without quantity, &c. And this being granted, I form my Argument thus, That which takes away the natural being from ſigns and Sacraments, deſtroys their nature and eſſence; becauſe the relative and ſacramental being cannot be without the abſolute and natural, as hath been proved. But the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation deſtroys the natural being of the Bread and Wine, which are ſigns and Sacraments of Chriſts Body and Bloud; for by tranſubſtantiation, the whole ſubſtance of the Bread and Wine is deſtroyed: Therefore the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation deſtroys the nature and eſſence of Sacraments.

8. To this Argument our Adverſaries anſwer, That in the Euchariſt the Bread and Wine are not ſigns, becauſe by the conſecration they are deſtroyed as to their ſubſtance. But ſome of them ſay that the ſigns are the accidents of the Bread and Wine; others ſay that the Body and Bloud of Chriſt contained under the accidents of the Bread and Wine, are the ſigns of the Body and Bloud of Jeſus Chriſt crucified; Laſtly, others ſay, that neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine only, nor the Body and Bloud of Chriſt only, but the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, together with the accidents of the Bread and Wine, are the ſigns of the Body and Bloud of Jeſus Chriſt crucified: Therefore ſeeing the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation doth not deſtroy the natural being of Chriſts Body and Bloud, nor the natural being of the accidents of the Bread and Wine, they maintain that the doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation doth not deſtroy the nature and eſſence of Sacraments.

9. To this I reply, That neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine only, nor the Body and Bloud of Chriſt only, nor the Body and Bloud of Chriſt together with the accidents of the Bread and Wine, are the true ſigns of Jeſus Chriſt crucified; but the Bread and Wine only, which I prove thus:

Firſt, In Sacraments there ought to be an analogy and ſimilitude between the ſign, and the thing ſignified, as our Adverſaries confeſs, and particularly Card. Bellarmin Book 1. of the Sacrament, chap. 9. in theſe words. The fourth thing required in a Sacrament, is that the ſign ſhould have ſome ſimilitude and analogy with the thing ſignified. And he quotes St. Auguſtine in Epiſt. 23. to Boniface, ſpeaking thus: If Sacraments had not ſome ſimilitude of the things whereof they are Sacraments they could be no Sacraments: But in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine, nor the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, whether jointly or ſeverally, have that ſimilitude and analogy to the thing ſignified which is required, but only the Bread and Wine in ſubſtance; becauſe that which is principally ſignified, and repreſented by the ſigns in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, is the nouriſhment of our ſouls in the hope of eternal life: for as Baptiſm is the Sacrament of our Regeneration and ſpiritual birth; ſo the Euchariſt is the Sacrament of our ſpiritual nouriſhment, as Card. Bellarmin confeſſeth in Book 3. of the Euchariſt, chap. 9. and in Book 4. chap. 19▪ he ſaith that the Sacrament of the Euchariſt was ordained to preſerve ſpiritual life, which cannot be repreſented and ſignified, but by ſigns which can nouriſh our bodies; for the analogy and ſimilitude conſiſts in this, that as the ſigns have vertue to nouriſh our bodies for the preſervation of temporal life; ſo the things ſignified have a vertue to nouriſh our ſouls in the hope of eternal life. But neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine, nor the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, whether ſeverally, or jointly with the accidents, can nouriſh our bodies, (nouriſhment being eſſentially the converſion of aliment into the ſubſtance of a living body,) and it is certain that neither the accidents of Bread and Wine, nor the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, whether ſeparately, or jointly with them, can be converted into our ſubſtance, but only the ſubſtance of Bread and Wine, and other aliments which we take: Therefore neither the accidents of the Bread and Wine, nor the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, whether ſeparately, or jointly with them, are the true ſigns; but the Bread and Wine only, which being the ordinary nouriſhment of our bodies, do repreſent to us the ſpiritual nouriſhment of our ſouls by the Body and Bloud of Chriſt, received by Faith.

10. Secondly, The Council of Trent in Seſſion 13. commands that the Sacrament of the Euchariſt ſhall be adored with Latrie, which according to our Adverſaries, is the ſovereign worſhip due to God only. But the accidents of the Bread and Wine ought not to be adored, becauſe they are creatures, and that God only muſt be adored: Therefore the accidents of the Bread and Wine are not the Sacrament of the Euchariſt.

Thirdly, A Sacrament is a viſible ſign of an inviſible grace, as the Council of Trent defines it in Seſſions 6, and 13. But in the Euchariſt the Body and Bloud of Chriſt are not viſible: Therefore, in the Euchariſt the body and bloud of Chriſt, are not the ſigns.

Laſtly, I ſay, that in every Sacrament the ſign relates to the thing ſignified; and Relation is always between two different things; becauſe nothing relates to it ſelf, and conſequently nothing can be both the ſign and thing ſignified. But the Body and Bloud of Chriſt are the things ſignified: Therefore the Body and Bloud of Chriſt are not the ſigns. And it is to no purpoſe to ſay that Jeſus Chriſt in the Maſs is the ſign and figure of himſelf on the Croſs; for Jeſus Chriſt whereſoever he is, is one and the ſame yeſterday, to day, and for ever. And therefore Jeſus Chriſt not being different from himſelf, cannot be relative to himſelf, nor the ſign of himſelf.

Other reaſons which are uſually alledged againſt Tranſubſtantiation will be more properly mentioned in the next Chapter.

1. THe Romiſh Doctors affirm, That immediately after the Prieſt in the celebration of the Maſs, hath pronounced theſe words, this is my body, the body of Chriſt is really preſent in the Hoſt, and that it is whole and entire in every part and point of the Hoſt; which doctrine I deſtroy by theſe following Arguments, the firſt whreof is this.

2. If a thing be created in a place, either it muſt be produced there, or it muſt come, or be brought thither from ſome other place; for it is impoſſible to find out a third way of putting any thing in a place. And the Romiſh Doctors have hitherto been able to invent but one of theſe two ways of putting Chriſts Body in the Hoſt, the Jacobins telling us that it is brought thither from ſome other place, and the Jeſuites that it is produced there. But the body of Chriſt can neither come, nor be brought thither into the Hoſt▪ nor can it be produced there: Therefore the body of Chriſt is not in the Hoſt.

3. Firſt, The body of Chriſt cannot come, or be brought into the Hoſt from any other place, becauſe it can▪ come from no place but Heaven, being no where but in Heaven. But Chriſts body neither comes, nor is brought from Heaven into the Hoſt; which I prove thus: When a body comes, or is▪ carried from one place to another, it muſt leave its firſt place. For example, if a man would go from Paris to Rome, he muſt leave Paris: But the body of Jeſus Chriſt never leaves Heaven; for the heavens muſt contain him until the time of the reſtitution of all things. Acts 3. Therefore Chriſts body neither comes, nor is brought from Heaven into the Hoſt. Beſides, it is impoſſible that Chriſts body ſhould come or be brought into the hoſt without paſſing through the ſpace that is between Heaven and Earth where the conſecrated Hoſts are; becauſe a man cannot paſs from one extream to another without paſſing through the ſpace that is between them. But the ſpace between Heaven and Earth is too vaſt to be paſſed through in a moment (for theſe Doctors will have it, that immediately after the pronouncing of theſe words, this is my body, the body of Chriſt is brought into the Hoſt.) Moreover it muſt in a moment be in all the Heavens, and in all the Airs between the higheſt Heaven, and this Earth where the Hoſts are, (becauſe a man cannot paſs through a place without being there) and then it would have three ſorts of exiſtences at once, viz. one natural and glorious exiſtence in Heaven, one ſacramental exiſtence in the Hoſt, and one airy exiſtence in the Air. But ſeeing all theſe things are abſurd, we muſt conclude that Chriſts body neither comes, nor is brought into the Hoſt.

4. Secondly, Chriſts body cannot be reproduced in the conſecrated Hoſt, becauſe a thing that is produced already, cannot be produced again, without a preceding deſtruction; for as a dead man cannot be killed, nor that be annihilated, which is annihilated already; ſo neither can that be produced which is produced already, nor that receive a being which hath one already. This common conception of all men is founded upon this principle, That every action, whether it produceth or deſtroyeth a thing, muſt neceſſarily have two diſtinct terms, the one called in the Schools, terminus à quo, that is, the term from which the thing comes; and the other terminus ad quem, that is, the term to which it comes. But according to this principle, that cannot be annihilated which is ſo already, nor that receive a being which hath one already; becauſe the term from which it ſhould come, and the term to which it ſhould come, would be one and the ſame thing; contrary to the Maxime already laid down, viz. that the terms of action muſt neceſſarily be diſtinct, and that one of them muſt be the negation or privation of the other.

5. Here perhaps it may be objected, That by Tranſubſtantiation the ſubſtance of Chriſts body is not newly produced, but only a new preſence of him in the place where the ſubſtance of the bread was. But to this I anſwer, That in all ſubſtantial converſions and actions, a new ſubſtance muſt be produced, as in accidental, a new accident muſt be produced. But Tranſubſtantiation (according to the Romiſh Doctors) is a ſubſtantial converſion: Therefore by Tranſubſtantiation a new ſubſtance muſt be produced. And ſeeing that the new preſence of Chriſts body in the place where the ſubſtance of the bread was, is not a ſubſtance, but an accident of the Catagorie which the Philoſophers call Ʋbi, it is evident that by Tranſubſtantiation the preſence of Chriſts body only is not produced in the place where the ſubſtance of the bread was; and ſeeing that the ſubſtance of Chriſts body is not produced there (as hath been proved in the preceding number) we muſt conclude that there is no Tranſubſtantiation nor real preſence of Chriſts body in the Hoſt. This inſtance doth alſo deſtroy the adduction of Chriſts body into the Hoſt, which hath been already refuted in number 3.

6. My ſecond Argument is this. In a true humane body ſuch as Chriſts body is, there is ſomething above, and ſomething under, right and left, before and behind; for the head is above the neck, and the neck above the ſhoulders, the ſhoulders above the breaſt, the breaſt above the ſtomach, the ſtomach above the belly, the belly above the thighs, the thighs above the legs, &c. But all the World knows that in a point there is nothing above or under, right or left, before or behind: Therefore Chriſts body is not in a point, and conſequently it is not in every point, or part of the Hoſt. To this I add, that the quantity▪ and greatneſs of Chriſts body is nothing elſe but its length, breadth, and thickneſs, which cannot be in a point. Laſtly, The quantity of Chriſts body is nothing elſe but its extent, as we all know; and a body is extended when it hath its parts one without another; that is, they are not one within another, as all the Jeſuites expound it. But the doctrine of the preſence of Chriſts body in the Hoſt, puts all its parts one within another, becauſe it puts them all in a point: Therefore ſuch a doctrine takes away its extent, and conſequently its quantity.

7. My third Argument is this. To move and not to move at the ſame time, to be eaten and not to be eaten at the ſame time, to be in a point and not in a point at the ſame time, to occupy a place and not to occupy it at the ſame time, are contradictory things. But if the body of Chriſt were in divers conſecrated Hoſts, it would move and not move at the ſame time. For example, When a Prieſt carries a conſecrated Hoſt to a ſick perſon, the body of Chriſt which is pretended to be in it, moves with the Hoſt; for it leaves the Altar, and goes with the Prieſt toward the ſick perſons houſe, and at the ſame time the body of Chriſt, which is pretended to be in the other Hoſts that remain on the Altar, moves not; and ſo the ſame body of Chriſt at the ſame time moves and moves not, which is a contradiction. Seeing then it is impoſſible that one and the ſame body at one and the ſame time ſhould move and not move, it is likewiſe impoſſible that Chriſts body ſhould be in divers Hoſts at the ſame time. In like manner, if Chriſts body were at the ſame time in Heaven, and in the Hoſt it would be eaten and not eaten at the ſame time; for it would be eaten in the Hoſt by the Prieſt, and at the ſame time, it would not be eaten in Heaven. Alſo it would be in a point and not in a point at the ſame time; for in the Hoſt it would be in a point, and in Heaven it would not be in a point at the ſame time: Therefore ſeeing it is impoſſible that one and the ſame body at one and the ſame time ſhould be eaten and not eaten, ſhould be in a point and not in a point; it is alſo impoſſible that Chriſts body ſhould be both in Heaven and in the Hoſt at the ſame time.

8 The fourth Argument is this: Two relatives are always different, as the Father and Son, the Husband and the Wife, &c. and relation is always between two things that really differ; as the equality between two Ells, the reſemblance between two Crows, &c. In a word, nothing can have relation to it ſelf, but whatſoever hath relation muſt neceſſarily have it to ſomething elſe, as appears by the definition of Relation: But to be diſtant is a relative and not an abſolute term; for when we conceive an abſolute term we conceive but one thing, as when we conceive a Crow; but when we conceive a relative term, we neceſſarily conceive two things. For example, We cannot conceive a Crow to be like, without conceiving ſomething elſe to which it is like. Seeing then we cannot conceive a thing to be diſtant without conceiving ſomething elſe from which it is diſtant, it is evident that to be diſtant is a relative term, and that diſtant things are relatives, and conſequently are really different. Whence I form this Argument: Relative things are really different, as hath been proved: But the body that is at Rome is diſtant from that which is at Paris, by reaſon of the ſpace of about 300 leagues that is between thoſe two Cities; and the body that is in the higheſt heavens is diſtant from that which is upon earth, by reaſon of the many thouſands of leagues that are between heaven and earth: Therefore the body that is at Rome is different from that which is at Paris; and that which is in heaven, is different from that which is upon earth; and conſequently one and the ſame body cannot be at the ſame time at Rome and at Paris, in Heaven and upon Earth; elſe one and the ſame body might be diſtant and different from it ſelf, which is a contradiction: Therefore ſeeing Jeſus Chriſt is not diſtant, and different from himſelf, it follows that he cannot be at the ſame time in Heaven and in the Hoſt, nor at the ſame time in the conſecrated Hoſts at Rome and at Paris.

9. But perhaps it may be ſaid that a body being at the ſame time in two diſtant places is not diſtant from it ſelf, but that the places only are diſtant; and therefore that Chriſts body in heaven is not diſtant from it ſelf in the Hoſt, but it is the places only, viz. heaven and earth (where the Hoſt is) that are diſtant. To this I anſwer that it is only the diſtance of places that makes the diſtance of things exiſting in thoſe diſtant places. For example: The reaſon why Peter that is at Rome is diſtant from Paul that is at Paris, is not becauſe they are two things really different, elſe they would be always diſtant, even when they are in one Bed together, (for they are always really different) but all the reaſon of their diſtance is, becauſe they are in two diſtant places. Seeing then (according to our Adverſaries) that Chriſts body is in two diſtant places at once, viz. in Heaven and in the Hoſt, at Rome and at Paris in divers Hoſts, it follows that Chriſts body is diſtant, and different from it ſelf. And ſeeing it is impoſſible that it ſhould be diſtant and different from it ſelf, it is evident that it cannot be in two diſtant places at once; and conſequently not in Heaven and in the Hoſt.

10. Beſides, Suppoſe that Peter could be at Rome and at Paris at once, and that Peter that is at Rome ſhould have a mind to go to Paris, and ſhould go accordingly; and that the ſame Peter that is at Paris ſhould have a mind to go to Rome, and ſhould go accordingly, it is certain that Peter would draw near to himſelf, and meet himſelf. But things that draw near to each other, muſt of neceſſity have been at a diſtance before; and therefore if a body draws near to it ſelf, it is certain that it was diſtant from it ſelf before. And hereupon I would fain ask our Adverſaries, whether, when Peter ſhould meet himſelf, he would let himſelf paſs, or not? and if he ſhould let himſelf paſs, whether Peter going to Rome, would ſtep aſide and give way to himſelf going to Paris, or elſe the contrary? But if he ſhould not ſtep aſide and give place to himſelf, I would ask whether he would hinder himſelf from paſſing, or not? and if he ſhould not hinder himſelf from paſſing; whether he would paſs thorow himſelf, and ſo make another Janus with two faces, &c? Whatſoever anſwers they ſhall make to theſe Queſtions muſt (I am ſure) be very abſurd and ridiculous.

11 The fifth Argument is this: It is a perfect contradiction, that a body ſhould be one and not one: But if Chriſts body ſhould be at the ſame time in heaven, and upon earth in the hoſt, it would be one and not one; for it would be one by our Adverſaries own confeſſion, and it would not be one; which I prove thus: That a thing may be one, it muſt neither be divided in it ſelf, nor from it ſelf, as appears by the definition of Unity; and it is certain that nothing is divided or ſeparated from it ſelf: But if Chriſts body be at the ſame time in heaven and upon earth in the hoſt, it will be divided, and ſeparated from it ſelf, that which is in heaven being divided and ſeparated from that which is upon earth, becauſe it is not in the ſpace between both.

12. Here again it may be objected, That a body in divers places is divided from it ſelf locally, becauſe the places in which it is, are divided; but not entitatively, becauſe it is ſtill one and the ſame entity of body. To which I anſwer, 1. That entitative diviſion (which is nothing elſe but a plurality of beings, or a plurality of things really different) is no true diviſion, for then the three divine Perſons which are really different, would alſo be really divided; and the body and ſoul of a living man which do really differ, would alſo be really divided. 2. I ſay, That if a body be divided and ſeparated from bodies which it toucheth, it is alſo divided and ſeparated from bodies which it doth not touch; and if a body be divided and ſeparated from bodies to which it is near, it is alſo divided and ſeparated from bodies that are far diſtant from it; but eſpecially the diviſion is true, when between two there be bodies of divers natures, to which there is no union. Therefore, ſeeing that between Chriſts body, which is really in heaven, and the ſame body which is pretendedly upon earth in the conſecrated Hoſts, there be divers bodies of divers natures, to which it is not united; it is evident by our Adverſaries own doctrine, that Chriſts body is really divided and ſeparated from it ſelf. And ſeeing it is impoſſible it ſhould be ſeparated from it ſelf, it is alſo impoſſible that it ſhould be in heaven and in the hoſt at the ſame time. 3. I ſay, That local diviſion takes away entitative diviſion, and things that are divided locally, are alſo divided entitatively; that is, they are alſo really different; elſe no reaſon can be given why two glaſſes of water taken from the ſame fountain, are really different, ſeeing theſe waters are like in all things, except in reference to place, and there can no reaſon be given why the Ocean is not one ſingle drop of water only, reproduced in all places occupied by the Ocean, except it be that one drop of water cannot be reproduced in all thoſe places; but if it be poſſible, then Reaſon obligeth us to believe that it is really ſo, becauſe God and Nature do nothing in vain; and it is in vain to do that by many things, which may be done by one thing: and if it be really ſo, then it follows, That all the Sea-battles that ever have been, were fought in one drop of water, and many thouſands of men have been drowned in one drop of water, and all people ſince Adam have drunk but one drop of water, which things are abſurd and ridiculous.

13. The ſixth Argument is this: Jeſus Chriſt as he is man, cannot be in divers places at once, if another man cannot be ſo too, becauſe Jeſus Chriſt, as he is man, was made like unto us in all things, ſin only excepted, as the Apoſtle to the Hebrews obſerves. But another man cannot be in divers places at once; for example, Peter cannot be at the ſame time at Paris and at Rome, which I prove thus. It is impoſſible that Peter ſhould be a man and no man at the ſame time: But if Peter could at the ſame time be at Paris and at Rome, he might at the ſame time be a man and no man, which I prove thus: He that may at the ſame time be both dead and alive, may at the ſame time be a man and no man; becauſe he that is alive is a real man, and he that is dead is no real man, but a carcaſs: But if Peter could at the ſame time be at Paris and at Rome, he might be both alive and dead at the ſame time; for he might be mortally wounded at Paris and die there, and, at the ſame time not be hurt at Rome, but alive and making merry there. Beſides, Peter might be diviſibly at Paris, and indiviſibly at Rome; (as Chriſts body, according to our Adverſaries, is diviſibly in heaven, and indiviſibly in the hoſt:) But if at Paris (where he ſhould be diviſibly) his head ſhould be cut off, he would die, and ceaſe to be a man; and at Rome (where he ſhould be indiviſibly and in a point) his head ſhould not be cut off, and ſo he ſhould remain at the ſame time a living and real man, which is a contradiction. In a word, Peter might be at Paris in the midſt of flames, and be burnt and reduced to aſhes, and conſequently ſhould die, and be no man; whereas at the ſame time he might be at Rome in the River Tiber, ſound and brisk, and conſequently be a true living man: whence it follows that he might be a man, and no man, which is a contradiction.

14. To this may be added other abſurdities that would follow from this Poſition, that one body may be in divers places at once, viz. That one Candle lighted might give light to all the World, if it were reproduced in all places of the World: That a great Army might be made of one man, reproduced in a hundred thouſand adjoining places: That all the debts in the World might be paid with one Crown, reproduced as many times as there be Crowns due: That all the people in the World might quench their thirſt with one Pottle of Wine, reproduced as many times as there be inhabitants in the World: That all the men in the World might drink in one and the ſame Glaſs, reproduced as many times as there be men in the World: (whereupon a man might be ſo curious as to ask, whether if this Glaſs ſhould be broken at Paris, it would alſo be broken at Rome, Conſtantinople, and other places:) That one man reproduced in an hundred thouſand places, might at the ſame time marry an hundred thouſand wives, and lie with them; whereupon a man might deſire to know whether theſe women might not conceive, and every one of them be delivered of a child at the end of nine months; and conſequently it may be ſaid that one man did in one night beget a hundred thouſand children, &c.

15. The ſeventh Argument is this: If Chriſts body were in the hoſt, it would be ſeen there; for being there in its glory (as the Romiſh Doctors ſay it is) it would be there more viſibly then it was when he converſed amongſt men here below; becauſe the glory of Chriſts body doth principally conſiſt in the brightneſs and ſplendor of an extraordinary light, like to that which it had upon Mount Tabor; but who dares affirm that ſuch a glorious body is not viſible whereſoever it is; and yet it is certain that Chriſts body is not to be ſeen in the hoſt, which is an evident ſign that it is not there. But it may be ſaid that Chriſts body is under the accident of the Bread, and that theſe accidents hide it from us. To this I anſwer, that (according to our Adverſaries) Chriſts body is in the place where the ſubſtance of the Bread was: But the ſubſtance of the Bread was not under the accidents, and the accidents of the Bread were not upon their ſubſtance, for then the ſubſtance of the Bread and its accidents had been in two different places, above and under being two ſeveral differences of place, and that which is under is not above, &c. Therefore Chriſts body cannot be under the accidents of the Bread, and conſequently the accidents do not hide it from us. And ſeeing (as our Adverſaries ſay) Chriſts body is in every part and point of the hoſt, it muſt needs be in the ſuperficies, and conſequently cannot be hid or covered by the accidents of the Bread. Here again it may be ſaid that Chriſts body is glorious, luminous, and viſible of it ſelf, but God hinders us from ſeeing it. To this I anſwer, That if God hinders, it is only becauſe he is pleaſed ſo to do; and conſequently if he were pleaſed not to hinder, he would not do it, but would permit it to be ſeen in the ſame poſture as it is in the hoſt. Whereupon I would ask our Adverſaries in what poſture it would be ſeen there, whether ſitting, ſtanding, lying, or in any other poſture, or whether it would be in any poſture at all? If it be in no poſture, it muſt be without any external form, becauſe poſture or ſituation abſolutely depends upon external form, But how can a man be ſeen without an external form of a man, and without being in any poſture of a man? and how can Chriſts body be without poſture, and without external form; ſeeing (as our Adverſaries ſay) it is whole and entire in the whole hoſt, and occupies the whole ſpace of a great hoſt? But if it be ſitting, or ſtanding, or in any other poſture, and with the external form of a man, and if (as they ſay) it be whole, and entire in a point of the hoſt, then it will follow that a man may be ſeen ſitting, or ſtanding in a point; and ſeeing a man that is ſtanding hath his head above and his feet below, it will follow that Jeſus Chriſt will be ſeen in a point of the hoſt with his head above and his feet below, though in a point there be nothing above or below. To this I add, That if it could be ſeen in the hoſt it would appear as big as the hoſt, becauſe it would occupy the whole ſpace of the hoſt; and it would appear round, becauſe it would be bounded by the ſpace that the hoſt occupies, which is round. Beſides, if the hoſt ſhould be divided into two equal parts, it would appear leſs by one half, and in the form of a half circle, becauſe it would be whole and entire in the half of the hoſt, and occupy the ſpace of it. It would alſo appear a hundred thouſand times leſs, and in a hundred thouſand ſeveral forms; for, as they ſay, it is whole and entire in a hundred thouſand parts of the hoſt, and occupies the ſpaces of them. In a word, There was never ſuch a monſtrous thing ſeen in the World, as Chriſts body would be, if it were really in the hoſt in ſuch a manner, as our Adverſaries affirm it to be.

16. The eighth Argument is this: Either the Manhood of Jeſus Chriſt, which is pretended to be in the hoſt, can act there, or it cannot: if it cannot act, then it follows that it cannot ſee, hear, know, or love, or exerciſe any other function of the ſenſitive or rational ſoul: But if the Manhood of Chriſt in the hoſt knows nothing, nor loves nothing, then it follows that it will not be happy, becauſe happineſs chiefly conſiſts in the knowledge and love of God. Alſo the Manhood of Chriſt in the hoſt will be different from his Manhood in heaven; for it will know in heaven, and at the ſame time know nothing in the hoſt; it will love in heaven, and love nothing in the hoſt; it will ſee in heaven, and ſee nothing in the hoſt. But if Chriſts Manhood can act in the hoſt as it doth in heaven, then it will follow that it will open its eyes, and move its feet in a point; becauſe, according to our Adverſaries, it is whole and entire in every point of the hoſt. And being, as they tell us, God can as eaſily put the whole World into a point, as he doth the whole Manhood of Chriſt into a point of the hoſt, it will follow that all the parts of the World exiſting in a point, may do in it all thoſe actions which they now do in a vaſt ſpace, as the parts of Chriſts Manhood exiſting in a point of the hoſt can do in it all thoſe actions which they do in heaven; and ſo in a leſs ſpace then is occupied by a grain of Corn the Sun may move from Eaſt to Weſt, the Sea may have its flouds and ebbs, and the Engliſh may have a Sea-fight with the Spaniards. In a word, A Sparrow may eaſily ſwallow all the World, ſeeing the World will not occupy ſo much ſpace as a grain of Corn doth; and yet the World which it ſhall ſwallow, will be as great as it is at▪preſent; even as Chriſts body in the hoſt, is as big and as tall as it was on the Croſs, as our Adverſaries affirm.

17. The ninth Argument is this: As a body cannot be in a place, except it be produced there, or that it comes, or be brought thither from ſome other place; ſo a body cannot ceaſe to be in a place without being deſtroyed, or going to ſome other place; and conſequently if Chriſts body ceaſeth to be in the hoſt after the conſumption of the accidents, it muſt neceſſarily either periſh, or go to ſome other place: But Chriſts body cannot periſh, for Jeſus Chriſt dieth no more, Rom. 6. And Chriſts body goes to no other place; for if it ſhould go to any other place, it would go to heaven: But it cannot go to heaven, becauſe it is there already, and a man cannot go to a place where he is already: Therefore Chriſts body doth not ceaſe to be in the hoſt. Whence it follows, that either Chriſts body ſtill remains in the hoſt, and that it is impoſſible that ſhould be conſumed, or elſe that it never was in the hoſt: But every one knows by experience that the hoſts are eaten and conſumed, and that Chriſts body cannot be there after the conſumption of the accidents of the bread: Therefore it never was in the hoſt.

18. The tenth Argument is drawn from hence, That the pretended preſence of Chriſts body in the hoſt, deſtroys the nature of Chriſts body, thus: The properties of a Species are incommunicable to every other Species. For example: The properties of a man are incommunicable to a beaſt; for, ſeeing the properties flow from the eſſence, or are the very eſſence it ſelf, it is evident that if the eſſence of a Species be incommunicable to another Species, then the properties of a Species are alſo incommunicable to another: But the body and the Spirit are the two Species of ſubſtance: Therefore the properties of the Spirit cannot be communicated to the body, as the properties of the body cannot be communicated to the ſpirit. But there are two principal properties which diſtinguiſh bodies from ſpirits: The firſt is, That ſpirits are ſubſtances that are penetrable amongſt themſelves, that is, may be together in one and the ſame place, but bodies are impenetrable ſubſtances amongſt themſelves, that is, they cannot be together in one and the ſame place. The ſecond is, That bodies are in a place circumſcriptively, that is, all the body is in all the place, but all the body is not in every part of the place, but the parts of the body are in the parts of the place; but ſpirits are in a place definitively, that is, all the ſpirit is in all the place, and all the ſpirit is in every part of the place; becauſe a ſpirit having no parts, muſt neceſſarily be all whereſoever it is. Whence I form my Argument thus: That doctrine which gives to a body the properties of a ſpirit, changes the body into a ſpirit, and conſequently deſtroys the nature of a body, ſeeing properties cannot be communicated without the eſſence: But the doctrine of the pretended preſence of Chriſts body in the hoſt, gives to a body the properties of a ſpirit, becauſe it affirms that the quantity of Chriſts body penetrates the quantity of the Bread, and is in the ſame place with it; that all the parts of Chriſts body are penetrated amongſt themſelves, and are all in one and the ſame place; and that Chriſts body is all in all the hoſt, and all in every part of the hoſt: Therefore the doctrine of the Romiſh Church touching the pretended preſence of Chriſts body in the hoſt, deſtroys the nature of Chriſts body.

19. The eleventh Argument is drawn from hence: That Jeſus Chriſt being ſate at Gods right hand is in a glorious eſtate: and yet the doctrine of the pretended preſence of Chriſts body in the hoſt ſubjects him to divers ignominies, viz. that his body goes into peoples bellies, and amongſt their excrement; that it is ſubject to be eaten by his enemies, yea by Mice and other Beaſts. Hear what Claude de Xaintes, a famous Romiſh Doctor ſaith of it, Repet. 5. Chap. 2. Of all theſe we exclude not one from the true and corporal receiving of the Lords fl • ſh in the Sacrament, let him be Turk, Atheiſt, Infidel, or Hypocrite; yea, though he ſhould be the Devil himſelf incarnate. It is alſo ſubject to be ſtoln, for about 25 years ſince a Thief was executed at Paris for ſtealing out of a Church the Chalice and this God in it; and the Prieſt went to the Priſon in his ſacerdotal Ornaments, and falling on his knees before the Thiefs pocket, pulled his God out of it. And as it is a God that cannot keep himſelf from being ſtoln, ſo neither can he keep himſelf from being burnt, as it appeared when the Palace-Hal at Paris was burnt. In ſhort, The hoſt, or God of the Maſs, hath been ſeen in the hands of one poſſeſſed by the Devil, and conſequently in the Devils power; yea, there are charms made by the Romiſh Prieſts to compel the Devil to reſtore God to them. A horrible and prodigious thing to put God into the Devils power, and into a capacity of being eaten by the Devil incarnate, eſpecially, ſeeing he is now glorious in heaven.

20 The twelfth Argument is drawn from hence: That God doth no miracles without neceſſity: But what neceſſity is there that he ſhould do ſo many miracles in this Sacrament, viz. that accidents ſhould be without a ſubject? that the Bread ſhould be converted into Chriſts body, which is already? that Chriſts body ſhould be in a point, and in a hundred thouſand places at once? What neceſſity is there that it ſhould be eaten by wicked men, by Beaſts, and by Devils incarnate? What neceſſity is there that it ſhould be carried away by the Devil, that it ſhould be ſtoln, burnt, &c. Can it be ſaid that it is for the ſalvation of the ſoul of him that eats it? But Reprobates, as our Adverſaries confeſs, eat it too; and the Faithful under the Old Teſtament did not eat it, nor do the little children of Believers under the New, and yet they are ſaved for all that. Can it be ſaid with Bellarmin and Perron, that the hoſt being eaten, ſerves as an incorruptible ſeed for a glorious Reſurrection? But the Faithful of the Old Teſtament, and the little children of Believers under the New, will riſe again gloriouſly, though they never participated of the Euchariſt. And St. Paul tells us Rom. 8. that this ſeed of the reſurrection of our Bodies is not Chriſts fleſh, but his Spirit, in theſe words, If the Spirit of him that raiſed up Jeſus from the dead, dwell in you, he ſhall alſo quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

21. Laſtly, The holy Scripture▪ is clear in this matter; for Jeſus Chriſt is aſceuded into heaven, Acts 1. And the heavens muſt contain him until the time of the reſtitution of all things, Acts 3. and he himſelf ſaith, I leave the World and go to the Father, St. John 16. The poor ye have always with you, but me ye have not always, St. Matth. 26. To which may be added what Jeſus Chriſt ſaith, St. Matth. 24. viz. In the laſt days falſe Prophets will come▪ that ſhall ſay, Chriſt is here or there, and that he is in the ſecret chambers, (or Cabinets) which cannot be but by the doctrine of the Romiſh Church, which puts Chriſts body in divers places, and ſhuts it up in ſeveral Cabinets on their Altars; and it is very remarkable that in the Greek it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , that is, in the Cupboards, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 being properly a Cupboard to keep meat in.

1. AGainſt the adoration of the hoſt, I form three Propoſitions; The firſt is this, We are not obliged to adore or worſhip God every where, or in all places where he is, at leaſt not with external adoration, but we are only obliged to worſhip him in all places where he appears in his glorious Majeſty. The firſt part of this Propoſition, viz. That we are not obliged to worſhip God in all places where he is, appears by the practice of all Chriſtians. For God being every where, and conſequently in Stones, Trees, Beaſts, Devils, and all other Creatures, there is no man ſo extravagant as to fall on his knees before a Tree, an Aſs, or a Devil, that he may worſhip God in them, who is as really preſent in them, as he is in heaven.

2. The ſecond part of this Propoſition, viz. that we are only obliged to worſhip God both with internal and external adoration in all places where he appears in his glorious Majeſty, is proved, firſt, by the commands which Jeſus Chriſt gave his Apoſtles when they asked him how they ſhould pray; for he anſwers them thus; When ye pray, ſay, Our Father which art in Heaven, St. Matth. 6. St. Luke 11. Why doth he ſay, which art in heaven, and not which art on Earth, or in the Sea, or in the Air, ſeeing God is equally in all theſe places? but only becauſe God appears in heaven in his glorious Majeſty and there crowns all the bleſſed Spirits with his glory. Secondly, When God appeared to Moſes in the burning buſh, which was not conſumed, he ſaid to him, Take thy ſhoes from off thy feet, for the place where thou ſtandeſt is holy ground, Exod. 3. Why is this ground called holy, and Moſes commanded to approach it with reverence, ſubmiſſion, and adoration, ſeeing any other ground is equally Gods creatures, and that he is equally preſent every where? but only becauſe God did manifeſt ſomewhat of his power and glory in that place, by cauſing the Buſh to burn without being conſumed. Thirdly, Joſhua and the Iſraelites did proſtrate themſelves before the Ark of the Covenant, Joſhua 7. 6. becauſe God appeared there in a peculiar and glorious manner, for, from the Mercyſeat which covered it, he gave his oracles and made known his will, Exod. 25. 22. Numb. 7.

Fourthly, When the Prieſt celebrates Maſs, a little before the conſecration, he recommends the ſursùm corda, that is, the lifting up of their hearts; Why the lifting them up, ſeeing God is equally both above and below? but only becauſe God appears above in heaven in his glorious majeſty; and conſequently it is thither that we muſt direct our Vows, our Prayers, and our Worſhip.

3. The ſecond Propoſition is this: We are not obliged to adore Jeſus Chriſt in the water of Baptiſm, though he be really there in regard of all that is adorable in him. The firſt part of this Propoſition, viz. That we are not obliged to worſhip Jeſus Chriſt in the Water of Baptiſm, is chiefly proved by the practice of all Chriſtians; for no man ever fell on his knees before the Water of Baptiſm and adored Jeſus Chriſt in it, at leaſt not with external worſhip, which is only here intended; and doubtleſs the reaſon is, becauſe Jeſus Chriſt diſcovers no beam of his glory there; nor doth he appear in the Water of Baptiſm any more then in other waters; ſo that as we are not obliged to worſhip God, ſave only where he appears in his glorious Majeſty, as hath been proved, ſo neither are we obliged to worſhip Jeſus Chriſt, but only where he diſcovers ſome beam of his glory, which he doth not in the Water of Baptiſm.

4. The ſecond part of this Propoſition, viz. That Jeſus Chriſt is really preſent in the Water of Baptiſm in reſpect of all that is to be adored in him, is proved thus: All that is of it ſelf adorable in Jeſus Chriſt, is either his Godhead, or his divine Perſon, or his divine Attributes. As for his Godhead, ſeeing it is really every where it cannot be denied but that it is alſo in the Water of Baptiſm. As for his Perſon, ſeeing it is divine, and eternal, and infinite, it is really every where, and conſequently in the Water of Baptiſm: and as for his divine attributes, ſeeing they are not really different from the Godhead, or the perſon of Jeſus Chriſt, it neceſſarily follows, that ſeeing the Godhead and Perſon of Jeſus Chriſt, are really in the Water of Baptiſm, his divine Attributes muſt really be there likewiſe.

5. The third Propoſition is this: We are not obliged to adore Jeſus Chriſt in the hoſt, though he be really there in reſpect of all that is to be adored in him, viz. in reſpect of his Godhead, his divine Perſon, and his divine Attributes; yea, though he were there inviſibly in reſpect of his Manhood too. The principal reaſon of this hath been toucht upon already, viz. That as we are not obliged to worſhip God in all places where he is (at leaſt not with external worſhip) but there only where he appears in his glorious Majeſty, viz. ordinarily in heaven, and extraordinarily elſewhere, as hath been proved in the firſt Propoſition. And as we are not obliged to worſhip Jeſus Chriſt in the Water of Baptiſm with external adoration, though he be really there in reſpect of all that is adorable in him, becauſe he doth not diſcover the leaſt beam of his glory there, nor appears in the Water of Baptiſm more then in other waters, as hath been proved in the ſecond Propoſition: Even ſo we are not obliged to worſhip Jeſus Chriſt in the hoſt with external adoration, although he be there in reſpect of all that is to be adored in him, yea, though he were there in reſpect of his Manhood • ood; becauſe Jeſus Chriſt doth not diſcover any beam of his glory there, nor doth he appear in the conſecrated hoſts any more then in thoſe that are not conſecrated, for no man can diſtinguiſh the one from the other. And as for his Manhood which is pretended to be there inviſibly, I ſay that there is no ſenſible mark of its preſence, and conſequently nothing which obligeth us to external worſhip, for the ſame reaſon as is already alledged; for if the inviſible preſence of the Godhead, divine Perſon, and divine Attributes of Jeſus Chriſt which are of themſelves adorable, do not oblige us to external worſhip in the Water of Baptiſm, why ſhould the Manhood of Jeſus Chriſt, which is not of it ſelf adorable, oblige us to external adoration though it were in the Hoſt, it being there only, as they ſay, inviſibly? In a word, They muſt ſhew us the diſparity, and tell us the reaſon why we are not obliged to adore Jeſus Chriſt with external worſhip in the Water of Baptiſm, though he be really there preſent in reſpect of all that which is adorable in him, viz. in reſpect of his Godhead, his divine Perſon, and his divine Attributes, and yet are obliged to worſhip Jeſus Chriſt in the Hoſt with an external worſhip, though nothing renders him more adorable there then in the water of Baptiſm.

6. To this the Jeſuite S. Rigant, one of the moſt learned of his Order, anſwers, That although there be nothing in the conſecrated Hoſt that renders him more adorable then in the Water of Baptiſm; yet there is ſomething in the Hoſt which obligeth us to external worſhip, which is not in the Water of Baptiſm; becauſe, ſaith he, the Manhood of Jeſus Chriſt is in the Hoſt, and is there in ſtead of a ray of glory; and God will be adored in all places, where the Manhood perſonally united to the Godhead, is preſent: But in the Water of Baptiſm Jeſus Chriſt diſcovers no beam of his glory, and his Manhood which is equivalent to a ray of glory, is not there.

7. To this I reply, That the rays or beams of glory which oblige us to external adoration in a certain place, muſt be ſenſibly in that place. And therefore ſeeing the Manhood of Jeſus Chriſt which is pretended and ſuppoſed to be really preſent in the hoſt, is neither viſible nor ſenſible, it cannot be equivalent to a beam of glory. To which I add, That as the Godhead and divine Perſon of Jeſus Chriſt which are equally preſent in the Water of Baptiſm, and in the Hoſt, do not oblige us to external worſhip, for this only reaſon, viz. becauſe they do not diſcover any ray of their glory there: ſo neither doth the Manhood of Jeſus Chriſt, pretended and ſuppoſed to be really preſent in the hoſt, oblige us to external adoration, for this only reaſon, viz. becauſe it appears not there, nor diſcovers any ray of its glory. Laſtly, I affirm that by the very doctrine and practice of the Romiſh Church it ſelf, we are not obliged to adore Jeſus Chriſt in all places where his Manhood is, becauſe, as the Romiſh Doctors confeſs, we are not obliged to adore Jeſus Chriſt in that hoſt which the Prieſt hath newly eaten, and whoſe accidents are not yet deſtroyed; nor in that hoſt which is lockt up in the Cupboard that is on the Altar; nor in that hoſt which a Prieſt carries under his Cloak to a ſick perſon in the Country.

8. To this the ſame Jeſuite anſwers, That although the glory of Chriſts Manhood appears not to our bodily eyes, yet it appears to the eyes of our ſoul, viz. to our faith; for the greateſt glory of Chriſts Manhood conſiſts in its being perſonally united to the Godhead, and in being ſuſtained in a peculiar manner by the Word. Suppoſe then, ſays he, that Jeſus Chriſt be in the hoſt, we are ſure that it is perſonally united to the Godhead; and conſequently, the glory of Chriſts Manhood, which conſiſts in this perſonal union, doth certainly appear to our Faith, which is ſufficient to oblige us to an external adoration of Jeſus Chriſt in the Hoſt.

9. To this I reply, That there is a twofold glory of God, and of Jeſus Chriſt, or of his Manhood, viz. the one eſſential, internal, and hid from our ſenſes; the other accidental, external and apparent to our ſenſes: the eſſential and internal glory of God which is hid from our ſenſes, conſiſts in the eminence of his perfections, which are to be infinite, almighty, moſt wiſe, &c. and the accidental and external glory of God, which appears to our ſenſes, conſiſts in ſome miraculous and extraordinary effect, which is ſenſible; as when God cauſed a Buſh to burn without being conſumed, when he pronounced his Oracles from above the Mercyſeat; and when, being made man, and having manifeſted himſelf in the fleſh, he commanded the Winds and the Waves, caſt out Devils, raiſed the dead, &c. But I affirm that we are not obliged to worſhip God with an external adoration in all places where he is, in his eſſential and internal glory only, although it appears to our Faith, becauſe God being every where with this eſſential, and internal glory, we ſhould be obliged to worſhip him with an external adoration in Trees, in Beaſts, yea and in Devils too, which is abſurd: But we are only obliged to worſhip God with external worſhip in all places where he makes his eſſential and internal glory appear by ſome accidental and external glory, viz. by ſome miraculous or extraordinary effect, which is ſenſible, and equivalent to a ray of his eſſential and internal glory, as appears by what is ſaid in the firſt Propoſition. In like manner the perſonal union of the Godhead and Manhood, being an eſſential glory of Jeſus Chriſt, and an internal glory of his Manhood, wholly hid from our ſenſes, doth not oblige us to the external adoration of Jeſus Chriſt, although it certainly appears to our Faith, except it be accompanied with an external and ſenſible glory; for if the eſſential and internal glory of the Godhead and divine Perſon of Jeſus Chriſt, which appear equally preſent to our Faith in the Water of Baptiſm, do not oblige us to an external adoration of Jeſus Chriſt, except it be accompanied with an accidental, external and ſenſible glory; why ſhould the internal glory of Chriſts Manhood, which is infinitely beneath the eſſential and internal glory of the Godhead, and appears preſent to the Faith of thoſe of the Romiſh Church, oblige them to the external adoration of Jeſus Chriſt, if it be ſeparated from all external and ſenſible glory? To this I add, That according to the doctrine and practice of the Romiſh Church, we are not obliged to adore Jeſus Chriſt with external adoration in all places where the perſonal union of the Manhood with the Word, appears to the Faith of thoſe of that Church; for we are not obliged to adore Jeſus Chriſt in that hoſt which a Prieſt hath newly ſwallowed; nor in that hoſt which is lockt up, nor in that hoſt which a Prieſt carries under his Cloak to a ſick perſon in the Country; although the eſſential glory of Jeſus Chriſt, and the internal glory of his Manhood (which this Jeſuits makes to conſiſt in the perſonal union of the Manhood with the Word) appear certain to the Faith of thoſe of the Romiſh Church.

10. To this the Jeſuite anſwers, That as if we would obtain any grace from God, conſidered as he really exiſts in a ſtone, we ſhould be obliged to proſtration and external worſhip of the Godhead really preſent in that ſtone: ſo, if we would obtain any grace from Jeſus Chriſt really exiſting in the hoſt, we are obliged to approach unto it with reverence, and external adoration; and conſequently we are obliged to worſhip Jeſus Chriſt in the hoſt with external adoration whenſoever we would obtain any grace from him, as he exiſts in the hoſt.

11. To this I reply, That as we are never obliged to beg grace of God, as he exiſts in a ſtone, except he diſcovers ſome beam of his glory there, (for it is ſufficient to beg grace of God, conſidered as he exiſts in heaven, where he appears in his glorious Majeſty, according to the command of Jeſus Chriſt, when ye pray, ſay, Our Father which art in heaven, and according to the command of the Apoſtles, lift up your hearts) ſo we are never obliged to beg grace of God or Jeſus Chriſt, conſidered as exiſting in the hoſt, becauſe he diſcovers no ray of his glory there; but it is ſufficient to beg grace of God or Jeſus Chriſt, conſidered as exiſting in heaven, becauſe he always appears there in his glorious Majeſty. Therefore as we are never obliged to beg grace of God, conſidered as exiſting in a ſtone, ſo we are never obliged to adore him there: and as we are never obliged to beg grace of God or Jeſus Chriſt, conſidered as exiſting in the hoſt, ſo we are never obliged to adore him there with external adoration.

12. To this the Jeſuit anſwers, That God hath done many miracles by this Sacrament, and in it, both by puniſhing prophane perſons, and the deſpiſers of it; and alſo by making a little child appear upon the Altar, or fleſh in ſtead of the bread, or bloud in ſtead of the wine; all which ought to be acknowledged as ſo many rays of the glory of Chriſts Manhood, and that they ever oblige us to the external adoration of Jeſus Chriſt in the hoſt.

13. To this I reply, That I do not at all doubt but that God hath many times puniſhed prophane perſons, and the contemners of this Sacrament, both ordinarily and extraordinarily; for St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. tells us that many of thoſe that did receive this Sacrament unworthily, were ſick, and many ſlept, that is, were dead: and St. Cyprian in the Treatiſe of thoſe that fall, obſerves Gods judgment againſt wicked and prophane perſons, and the contemners of this Sacrament. But as for thoſe apparitions of Jeſus Chriſt in form of a child, and of fleſh and bloud, &c. I look on them as fabulous ſtories invented by Monks and other ſuperſtitious perſons, above ſeven or eight hundred years after Chriſt, when the doctrine of the real preſence of Chriſts Manhood in the hoſt, began to prevail▪ and was powerfully oppoſed by Gods people in thoſe days.

14. Secondly, I ſay, That although there had been ſuch apparitions yet we muſt not infer from thence, either the preſence of Chriſts Manhood, or external adoration; becauſe that is not Chriſts fleſh which ſeems to be ſo; and theſe apparitions may be illuſions of the Devil. The Jeſuite Vaſquez in Diſput. 193. chap. 2. ſpeaks thus. I anſwer, That which appears is not the fleſh of Chriſt, nor of any other that is really fleſh; but it is only an effigies, or appearance of fleſh, as St. Thomas ſaith: and whereas the ſimple are deceived, and do believe that Chriſts fleſh is there in a diviſible and bloudy manner, it is no great matter, and this deceit muſt be corrected by the right inſtruction of the Doctors. Gabriel Biell, a famous Doctor of the Romiſh Church, Leſſon 51. upon the Canon of the Maſs, ſaith, That ſuch apparitions of fleſh and bloud may be made by the illuſions of the Devil, to deceive the ſimple, God permitting it to be ſo; and he gives an example of it, viz. That in a Convent of Minor Friers at Yſennes in Thuringia, a certain perſon like unto an Angel, appeared to a Lay-Frier that was preparing himſelf for the Communion, and thruſt into his mouth a piece of fleſh, which as ſoon as he had ſwallowed, he was poſſeſſed, and grievouſly tormented by the Devil. The Jeſuit Suarez, Tom. 3. Diſp. 55. Sect. 3. ſpeaks thus. Experience tells us that by length of time this fleſh and this bloud which appear in the Euchariſt, are changed and corrupted. But when this happens, ſaith that famous Romiſh Doctor Alexander Hales, Sent. 4. Queſt. 11. It is a ſign that the apparition which was made in that form, was not made by the power of God, but by the power of the Devil, or by the craft of man.

15. Thirdly, If it were as true as it is falſe, that Jeſus Chriſt hath appeared ſometimes in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt in the form of a little child, or of fleſh and of bloud; yet I ſay, that as God, when he appeared to Moſes in the Buſh that burned without being conſumed, was to be worſhiped there, for this only reaſon, becauſe he diſcovered a beam of his glory by cauſing the Buſh to burn without being conſumed; but it doth not follow that God muſt be worſhiped in all other Buſhes, though he be as really in them as he was in that, for this only reaſon, becauſe he doth not diſcover in them any ray of his glory: ſo, if Jeſus Chriſt hath ſometimes appeared viſibly in the hoſt (which I do not grant) I think then he ſhould have been worſhiped, becauſe of ſuch a viſible appearance, which is equivalent to a ray of glory; but it follows not that Jeſus Chriſt muſt be adored in other hoſts, where his Manhood appear; not, though it be really there, for this only reaſon, becauſe no ray of his glory appears there.

16. To the three foregoing Propoſitions I add this Argument, which is very conſiderable: In lawful adoration it is requiſite that he that adores, be well aſſured that what he adores is the true God, elſe he may juſty be reproached, as Jeſus Chriſt reproached the woman of Samaria, Ye worſhip ye know not what. But the Romaniſts can never be aſſured (according to their own maxims) that the hoſt which they worſhip is the true God, and they have always cauſe to ſuſpect that they worſhip a morſel of Bread in ſtead of the Redeemer of the World; becauſe according to their own doctrine, the real preſence of Chriſts body in the hoſt depends on lawful conſecration; and lawful conſecration depends on the quality of the Prieſt, and on the pronouncing of the words of conſecration, and on his intention in pronouncing them; for there is no conſecration (as they ſay) when either he that celebrates Maſs is no Prieſt, or doth not pronounce the words that are eſſentially requiſite to conſecration, viz. this is my body, &c. or doth not pronounce them with intention to conſecrate; and conſequently in theſe caſes the hoſt remains meer bread. But it is impoſſible certainly to know theſe three things: For as for the quality of the Prieſt, he muſt have been baptized; and he that baptized him muſt have obſerved the eſſential form of Baptiſm, and have had intention to baptize him: Again, he muſt have received Ordination from a true Biſhop; and the Biſhop muſt have obſerved the eſſential form of Ordination, and have had intention to make him a Prieſt; and to make this Biſhop a true Biſhop, he muſt have been baptized in due form, and with the requiſite intention, and muſt have received Ordination in due form, and with the requiſite intention from other Biſhops; and they again, for the making them true Biſhops, muſt alſo have received Baptiſm and Ordination in due form, and with the requiſite intention, from other true Biſhops, and theſe from others, and ſo back to the Apoſtles. But who can be aſſured that from the Apoſtles to a Biſhop, or Prieſt, now adays, there hath been no failing, either in the eſſential form of Baptiſm or Ordination, or in the requiſite intention? As for the pronouncing of the words requiſite to conſecration, none but the Prieſt can know whether he hath pronounced them or not, becauſe in the celebration of the Maſs, thoſe words are pronounced ſo ſoftly, that no perſon preſent can hear them. And as for the intention, it is evident that no man but himſelf can know it. Beſides, It is known that ſome Prieſts are Magicians, as Lewis Goffredi, and other wicked Prieſts, who do neither conſecrate in due form, nor with the requiſite intention, eſpecially ſuch as believe nothing of what they profeſs; yea, divers Monks and Prieſts that have been converted to our Religion, have aſſured us that for a long time before their converſion they did abhor the Idolatry that was practiſed in the adoration of the hoſt. Judge then if ſuch perſons as theſe had any intention to conſecrate in the celebration of the Maſs.

17. The Romiſh Doctors have ſought all the remedies imaginable to prevent this danger. Pope Adrian Queſt. 3. ſpeaks thus: In the adoration of the Euchariſt, there is always a tacite condition, viz. if the conſecration be duly made; (as bath been decided at the Council of Conſtance) otherwiſe they could not be excuſed from idolatry, that worſhip the hoſt when the Prieſt pretends to celebrate, but celebrates not; or pretends to celebrate, and is no Prieſt, as it many times happens. Obſerve theſe words, it many times happens, for they ſhew that there is great cauſe of doubting, and that much caution muſt be uſed. For, as if a woman, in her husbands abſence, ſhould ſay to a man that comes to her, and tells her he is her husband, (and ſhe hath probable grounds to ſuſpect him) If thou art my husband I will receive thee, and thereupon endeavours to clear it before ſhe admits him to any privacy; this condition frees her promiſe from blame; but if ſhe gives her ſelf up to him, before ſhe clears this doubt, ſaying, I will receive thee if thou art my husband, this condition doth not free her action from blame, but ſhe will be reputed an adultereſs. Even ſo if a man to whom an hoſt is propoſed to be adored, and he hath reaſon to doubt whether it ought to be adored, ſhould only ſay, If thou art Chriſt I will adore thee, and ſhould not adore it before he be well aſſured of it, this condition would render him blameleſs; but if, notwithſtanding his doubt, he adores it, this condition, if thou art Chriſt, I adore thee, doth not exempt him from the crime of Idolatry; for to what purpoſe is the condition, whether it be tacite, or expreſt, I adore thee if thou art Chriſt, becauſe he actually adores it, without knowing whether it be ſo or not.

18. To what hath been ſaid, I add, That the Primitive Church never adored the hoſt, nor believed that the body and bloud of Chriſt were really and inviſibly in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt; for if the Chriſtians of the Primitive Church had believed it, they had furniſhed the Heathens with ſpecious pretences to excuſe the idolatry of their Image-worſhip, and to retort upon the Chriſtians thoſe very arguments which they had made uſe of againſt them.

19. Firſt, The Heathens did maintain that their Idols were compoſed of two things, viz. of a viſible Image and an inviſible Deity dwelling in it. They bring their gods, ſaith St. Chryſoſtom in Theodoret in Atrep, into their baſe images of wood and ſtone, and ſhut them up there as in a priſon. Your gods, ſaith Arnobius, Book 6. dwell in Plaiſter and Baked Earth; and, that they may make theſe materials more venerable, they ſuffer themſelves to be ſhut up, and to remain hid and detained in an obſcure Priſon. But might not the Heathens have juſtly replied to the Ancient Chriſtians, if they had believed what the Romiſh Doctors do now adays. And do not you believe the very ſame of your hoſt, that it is compoſed of two things, viz. of the viſible ſpecies of bread, and the inviſible body of Chriſt, which is hid under the ſpecies? Doth not your Chriſt dwell in baked dough, and that he may make a piece of bread more venerable, doth he not ſuffer himſelf to be ſhut up, and doth he not remain hid, as in a Priſon?

20. Secondly, The Heathens held that conſecration was the means whereby the Deity, which they adored, was made preſent in the Image. So Tertullian in his Apolog. chap. 12. ſaith, I find nothing to object againſt Images, but that the matter of them is ſuch as our Frying-pans and Kettles are made of, which changeth its deſtiny by conſecration. And Minutius Felix ſpeaks thus of a Pagan Image, Behold it is melted, forged, faſhioned, and yet it is not God; behold it is gilded, finiſhed, erected, and yet it is not God; behold it is adorned, conſecrated, and worſhiped, and then it is God. And Arnobius in Book 6. Dedication or Conſecration makes them dwell in Images, they refuſe not to dwell in habitations of Earth, or rather, being forced to go into them by the right of Dedication, they are incorporated, and joined to the Images. But might not the Heathens have replied to the Chriſtians thus. We find it juſt ſo in your Euchariſt, viz. that the ſigns are of the ſame matter with our common Bread and Wine, but change their deſtiny by conſecration; behold it is kneaded, and moulded, and yet it is not God; behold it is baked in the Oven, and yet it is not God; behold it is conſecrated and adored, and then it is God; for your Chriſt doth not refuſe to enter into theſe earthy matters, or rather, being forced to go into them by the right of conſecration, he is incorporated and joined to the ſpecies of the Bread and Wine.

21. Thirdly, The Heathens had both great and little Images, and did believe that the Deity which they worſhiped, was as well in the little as in the great ones. Arnobius in Book 6. jears them for this, ſaying, that, If their Gods had their great and little Images in which they dwelt, they muſt needs be ſtraightned for want of room in the little ones, whereas in the great ones they might ſtretch themſelves out at their full length. But might not the Heathens have reproached the Chriſtians of thoſe times in the ſame manner if they had believed that Jeſus Chriſt had been wholly contained as well in a little hoſt as in a great one, and as well in the leaſt part of the hoſt as in the greateſt?

22. Laſtly, The Heathens were reproached for worſhiping Wood and Stone, the work of mens hands; things that cannot ſee, hear, ſmell, taſte, breath, ſpeak, or move; things expoſed to age, ruſt, corruption, duſt, falling, breaking, burning, &c. to the injuries of Worms, Mice, and other Beaſts; ſubject to the power of Enemies, to be ſtoln, lockt up, &c. as you may read in Arnobius, Lactantius, Minutius Felix, and other ancient Doctors of the Church. But if thoſe ancient Chriſtians had believed what the Romaniſts now do, might not the Heathens have replied thus; And can you deny that the hoſt which you worſhip is the work of a mans hands, that moulded it, and gave it ſuch a form as pleaſed him, and then conſecrated it with certain words to make your Chriſt come into it whole and entire? Do not you adore your hoſt, which neither ſees, nor hears, nor ſmells, nor breaths, nor walks, nor ſpeaks, nor moves? Is not your hoſt ſubject to age, duſt, felling, burning, to Worms, to Mice, and other Beaſts? Is it not ſubject to be taken away, ſtolen, lockt up, &c. But if it be ſaid that the accidents of the hoſt are only ſubject to theſe inconveniences, and not Jeſus Chriſt that is under them, I anſwer that the Heathens had ſaid the ſame, viz. that their Gods were not ſubject to theſe inconveniences, but the Images only in which they were; for in Arnobius his 6. Book, they ſpeak thus: We believe not the Copper, Gold, and Silver, whereof the Images are made, to be Gods and Deities, that of themſelves deſerve adoration; but in theſe materials we adore thoſe that ſacred dedication introduceth, and cauſeth to dwell in the Images.

1. THe taking away of the Euchariſtical Cup was eſtabliſhed as an Article of Faith by the Romiſh Church Repreſentative, aſſembled in Council at Conſtance, Anno 1415. Seſſion 13. in a Canon, the chief clauſes whereof are theſe: Seeing that in divers parts of the World there be ſome who raſhly preſume to ſay, that Chriſtian people ought to partake of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt under both ſpecies of the Bread and Wine; and do give the Communion to Lay-people, not only under the ſpecies of the Bread, but alſo under the ſpecies of the Wine; this preſent holy general Council of Conſtance, lawfully aſſembled in the name of the Holy Ghoſt, being deſirous to provide for the ſafety of the faithful againſt this errour, doth therefore declare, decree, and determine, that although Jeſus Chriſt did adminiſter this venerable Sacrament to his Diſciples under both the ſpecies of Bread and Wine; and although in the Primitive Church the Faithful did receive this Sacrament under both ſpecies, yet notwithſtanding that (for the avoiding of certain dangers and ſcandals) this cuſtom, which was introduced with reaſon, ought to be kept, viz. that Prieſts that ſay Maſs ſhall communicate under both the ſpecies of the Bread and Wine, but that Lay-perſons ſhall communicate under the ſpecies of Bread only: and they that ſhall ſay the contrary, ought to be expelled as Hereticks, and grievouſly puniſhed by the Biſhops, or their Officials. This Canon was confirmed by the ſucceeding Romiſh Councils, and particularly by the Council of Trent.

2. Againſt ſo horrible a Canon and ſo ſtrange a Law, it is very difficult to oppoſe any thing; for, if you tell them that this Law is contrary to the Inſtitution and command of Jeſus Chriſt, they freely confeſs it; ſeeing that although Jeſus Chriſt did inſtitute and adminiſter the Euchariſt under both ſpecies, yet they will not have it ſo practiſed. If you tell them that this Law is contrary to the command of St. Paul, and practice of the Primitive Church, they ingeniouſly own it; for they openly declare, that although the Faithful in the Primitive Church did receive the Sacrament of the Euchariſt under both ſpecies, yet they that practiſe it thus ought to be expelled and puniſhed as Hereticks. This is the true way of ending all Controverſies, and of keeping us from diſputing with them. For example, If we alledge that St. Paul 1 Tim. 4. ſaith, that they who forbid to marry, and command to abſtain from meats, do teach the doctrines of Devils; they need only anſwer, That although St. Paul doth ſay ſo, yet we muſt not believe it, becauſe the Romiſh Church hath determined otherwiſe. Again, If we alledge, That the ſame Apoſtle Epheſ. 2. ſaith, that we are ſaved by grace, through faith; and that not of our ſelues, it is the gift of God; not of works, leaſt any man ſhould boaſt; they need only anſwer, That although this was written by the Apoſtle, yet we muſt not believe it, becauſe the Romiſh Church hath determined, that we are ſaved by works and faith as coming from our ſelves, and from the ſtrength of our own free will, &c. And now I leave you to judge whom we ought to follow, whether theſe lying Doctors, or Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles. But that which I find utterly inſupportable is this, viz. that they accuſe of raſhneſs, errour, and hereſie, thoſe that by obeying Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles, and following the practice of the Primitive Church, do affirm that we ought to partake of the Cup as well as of the Bread. Again, I find it an inſufferable piece of impudence, that they boaſt ſo much of antiquity, and of the conformity of their Creed to that of the Primitive Church, and yet can ſo openly renounce both in this chief and principal point of doctrine.

3. Here the Romiſh Doctors now adays think to ſhelter themſelves, by telling us it is true that Jeſus Chriſt did inſtitute the Sacrament of the Euchariſt under both the ſpecies of the Bread and Wine; and that the Primitive Church did ſo celebrate it, not by any expreſs command of Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles, but meerly by Eccleſiaſ • ical policy, which may be changed, as ſeveral occaſions and circumſtances require. And they add, That it is ſufficient to obſerve that which is of the eſſence of the Sacrament, viz. to receive the body and bloud of Chriſt; but that the Church may change that which is accidental, viz. to receive them under both the ſpecies, or under one ſpecies only; for they will have it, that the bloud of Chriſt is under the ſpecies of the Bread, by concommitance▪ and that his body is under the ſpecies of the Wine by concommitance; becauſe Jeſus Chriſt being now glorious, his body and bloud cannot be ſeparated.

4. To this I reply, Firſt, That there is an expreſs command of Jeſus Chriſt to take the Cup and drink, St. Matth. 26. in theſe words, drink ye all of it. To this the Romiſh Doctors anſwer, That the word all is not extended to all men; for then we ſhould ſay that the Euchariſtical Cup ought to be given to Turks, Jews, and all other Infidels. And they add, that the word all doth not extend to all thoſe that are of the body of the Church of the Elect, for then the Euchariſtical cup ſhould be given to little children, whom God hath elected to eternal life: But ſay they, the word all is extended only to all thoſe, to whom Jeſus Chriſt gave the cup, viz. to the Apoſtles, conſidered as they were Paſtors.

5. To this I reply, That although Jeſus Chriſt gave this command to drink of the Euchariſtical cup to his Apoſtles only, yet we muſt know in what quality they received this command. But it was not in the quality of Apoſtles, for then none but Apoſtles could partake of the cup; and there being now no more Apoſtles, it ſhould be quite taken away, and ſo Maſs could be no more celebrated. And it was not in quality of Paſtors, or ſacrificing Prieſts; for Jeſus Chriſt was then the only Sacrificer, as the Romiſh Doctors ſay, and the Apoſtles did not then exerciſe the function of ſacrificing Prieſts. Beſides it belongs to Paſtors, and thoſe that adminiſter the Sacraments, being publick perſons to give, but to private perſons to receive only: But the Apoſtles in the celebration of the Euchariſt, did only receive of Jeſus Chriſt their Maſter and Paſtor: Therefore they received the command to drink of the cup, as they were Believers. Whence it follows that all the faithful that partake of the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, are obliged by the command of Jeſus Chriſt to drink of the cup. So then the Romiſh Doctors are miſtaken when they tell us that none but Prieſts that ſacrifice, have a right to drink of the cup, and that thoſe Prieſts that do not ſacrifice, muſt communicate under the ſpecies of the bread only, for at that time the Apoſtles did not ſacrifice. To this may be added, that if the command of Jeſus Chriſt, drink ye all of it, was ſpoken to Paſtors only, becauſe they to whom Chriſt ſpake were Paſtors; then it follows that the command of Jeſus Chriſt, Take, eat, was ſpoken to Paſtors, becauſe they to whom Jeſus Chriſt ſpake were Paſtors; and ſo the people will not be obliged by any command to communicate under the ſpecies of the bread, and conſequently will be wholy deprived of the Sacrament, which is very abſurd and contrary to Chriſtian Religion.

6. Secondly, I ſay, That in 1 Cor. 1. there is an expreſs command to all the Faithful to drink of the cup, in theſe words, Let a man examine himſelf, and ſo let him eat of this bread, and drink of this cup. In which words the Apoſtle ſpeaks to all Believers, who, no doubt, have cauſe to examine themſelves. And this is apparent, becauſe St. Paul directs his Epiſtle (and conſequently theſe words) to all thoſe of the Church of Corinth, as well Lay-men as Eccleſiaſtical; for in chap. 1. verſ. 2. he directs it to all that in every place call upon the name of Jeſus Chriſt our Lord. To this I add, That Jeſus Chriſt doth not only ſay, as often as ye eat this bread, but alſo, as often as ye drink this cup ye do ſhew the Lords death till he come; ſo that we do as much commemorate Chriſts death by partaking of the cup in the Euchariſt, as we do by partaking of the bread. And this is very proper, for ſeeing that not only the body of Chriſt was broken, but alſo his bloud ſhed on the Croſs; and that in every propitiation and expiation for ſin, the effuſion of bloud was very conſiderable (becauſe it repreſents death better then any thing elſe doth) it is certain that they do not celebrate the memory of Chriſts death as they ought, that do not partake of this part of the Sacrament, whereby only we commemorate the effuſion of Chriſts bloud.

7. Thirdly, I ſay, that in the diſpute about the Euchariſt, our Adverſaries do alledge to us the words of Jeſus Chriſt in chap. 6. of St. Johns Goſpel, Except ye drink the bloud of the ſon of man, ye have no life in you. Why then do they deprive the people of life, by taking the cup from them and hindering them from drinking? And it is not at all to the purpoſe here to alledge concommitance, and to tell us that by taking Chriſts body under the ſpecies of the bread, we take his bloud alſo, becauſe 'tis inſeparable from his body. For, to this I anſwer, Firſt, That to take Chriſts bloud in taking the hoſt, is not to drink it: But Jeſus Chriſt ſaith expreſly, Except a man drink his bloud he hath no life in him. Secondly, I ſay, That although in ſome places by the body, ſhould be meant the body and bloud too, yet it could not be in thoſe places where a manifeſt diſtinction is made between the body and the bloud: But in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt this diſtinction is very apparent; for Jeſus Chriſt gave firſt the Sacrament and ſign of his body, in theſe words, Take; eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; and then ſeparately the Sacrament of his bloud, in theſe words, Drink ye all of it, for this is my bloud, which is ſhed for you. And he not only ſpeaks of them ſeparately, but repreſents them as really ſeparated in his death▪ for he ſaith, my body broken for you, and my bloud ſhed for you. In which words there is no place for concomitance; for the body broken by divers wounds doth not contain the bloud, and the bloud being ſhed, is not contained in the body. Alſo our Adverſaries affirm, that the ſacramental words do operate that which they ſignifie; But by their own confeſſion, they ſignifie the ſeparation of Chriſts body from his bloud, as Card. Perron acknowledgeth in his reply to the King of Great Britain, pag. 1108. in theſe words, The ſcope of the entireneſs of this Sacrament, is to put us in mind that this body and this bloud which we receive, were divided by his death on the Croſs; whence St. Paul ſaith, as often as we eat this bread, and drink this cup, we ſhew the Lords death till he come. Thirdly, I ſay, That as he that eats bread dipt in wine, hath indeed wine in his mouth, but doth not drink it; ſo he that ſhould eat or ſwallow a conſecrated hoſt, would not drink Chriſts bloud, though it were in it.

8. Laſtly, I ſay, That ſeeing the Sacraments were inſtituted to aſſure us the more of the truth of Gods promiſes, and that all our comfort depends on this perſwaſion, that all Gods promiſes are moſt true; it neceſſarily follows, that as much of the Sacrament as is taken away, ſo much of the certainty of this perſwaſion is diminiſhed. And 'tis to no purpoſe to ſay that one part of the Sacrament doth as much confirm Gods promiſes as the whole Sacrament doth; for if it be ſo, then God hath unneceſſarily inſtituted two Sacraments; for it had been enough to have inſtituted Baptiſm only, ſeeing it is ordained to confirm Gods promiſes. But, if for ſuch a confirmation two Sacraments are better then one, and if two pledges, and two ſeals for that purpoſe, are of more conſequence then, one alone; then in one Sacrament alſo, two ſigns are of more weight then one alone, for the confirmation of Gods promiſes. and ſeeing it is ſaid St. Luke 22. and 1 Cor. 11. that the cup is the New Teſtament, and the New Covenant in the bloud of Chriſt, becauſe it is the Sacrament of it, why then are people deprived of it?

9. As for the imaginary dangers and ſcandals which the Romiſh Doctors find in peoples partaking of the cup, I ſay in general, that Jeſus Chriſt (in whom the treaſures of wiſdom are hid, and in whom the fulneſs of the Godhead dwells bodily) foreſaw them as well as they; and yet he inſtituted and adminiſtred the cup, and commanded all to drink of it. And St. Paul who was extraordinarily inſpired by the Holy Ghoſt, doth (notwithſtanding theſe pretended dangers and ſcandals) command the Corinthians, as well Lay perſons as Eccleſiaſtical, to drink of the cup, as hath been already proved.

10. The firſt inconvenience which our Adverſaries find in peoples partaking of the cup, is that they fear they may dip their mouſtaches in the Chalice, and ſo the bloud of Chriſt may remain on ſome hair of the mouſtache; alſo they fear that the ſpecies of the wine, and conſequently Chriſts bloud, may fall to the ground, and being fallen it cannot be gathered up again.

To this I anſwer: Firſt, That Women, Eunuchs, and ſuch young men as have no beards, ought not to be excluded.

Secondly, It is better to be without Mouſtaches then without the participation of the whole Sacrament.

Thirdly, This inconvenience proceeds only from a falſe ſuppoſition, viz. that Chriſts bloud is under the ſpecies of the wine; but if in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt there be nothing but Bread and Wine in ſubſtance, and any of it ſhould fall to the ground accidentally, and not through any fault of ours, this inconvenience is not great enough to violate the inſtitution and command of Jeſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles.

11. The ſecond inconvenience is, That it is almoſt impoſſible to obſerve this Law where there is a great number of people and but one Prieſt.

To this I anſwer, Firſt, That in places where there is much people, as in Cities, there are divers Prieſts.

Secondly, If one Prieſt be not enough, another muſt be called from ſome neighbouring place.

Thirdly, That which cannot be done in one day, muſt be done in two or three days, rather then the command of Jeſus Chriſt ſhould be violated, and the practice of the Primitive Church abandoned.

12. The third inconvenience is, that ſome have a natural antipathy, or averſion to Wine, and conſequently cannot drink of the cup.

To this I anſwer, That becauſe corporal actions do depend on certain natural powers, they are ſuppoſed to be commanded to thoſe that have natural powers proper to exerciſe thoſe actions, and to none elſe. For example, The hearing of Gods Word is not commanded to deaf perſons, but to thoſe that can hear it; but drinking of Wine is a corporal action, and therefore commanded to thoſe only that can drink it. So that if the cup muſt be taken from all Lay-people, becauſe ſome of them have a natural antipathy to Wine; then the preaching of the Goſpel muſt be taken from Chriſtians, becauſe ſome of them are deaf and cannot hear it.

13. The fourth inconvenience is, That there are ſome Countries where no Wine grows, as in Lapland, Norway, &c.

To this I anſwer; Firſt, That although no Wine grows in thoſe Countries, yet ſome may be brought thither.

Secondly, But if none can be brought without being ſpoiled, and its form changed, then it is better to ſubſtitute the ordinary drink of the Country in ſtead of Wine.

Thirdly, But if this common drink of the Country may not be ſubſtituted in ſtead of Wine, then they that cannot have Wine, do abſtain from it, becauſe they are forced thereunto; and it is neither impudence nor contempt, to abſtain from a thing commanded by Jeſus Chriſt, when it is not to be had: but to ordain that they that have wine in abundance ſhall abſtain from the cup, is an inſufferable boldneſs, and a moſt unchriſtian contempt of the Sacrament.

1. THe Maſs, according to the Romiſh Doctors, is a Sacrifice of the Body and Bloud of Chriſt propitiatory for the ſins of the living and dead; and ſo it is defined by the Council of Trent, Seſſion 22. Againſt ſuch a Maſs we might alleadge all the Arguments already made uſe of againſt Tranſubſtantiation, and the pretended preſence of Chriſts body in the hoſt; for our Adverſaries confeſs that thoſe reaſons which deſtroy Tranſubſtantiation, and the pretended preſence of Chriſts body in the hoſt, do alſo deſtroy the Maſs. But in this Chapter we ſhall only uſe ſuch Arguments as are directly againſt the Maſs, and do utterly deſtroy it.

2. The firſt Argument is drawn from this, viz. that in the inſtitution and firſt celebration of the Euchariſt, Jeſus Chriſt did not ſacrifice nor offer his body and bloud to his Father, as appears by what is mentioned in the three Evangeliſts and the Apoſtle St. Paul, in which there is not the leaſt foot-ſtep to be ſeen of a ſacrifice, or oblation of Chriſts body and bloud. This Bellarmin confeſſeth in Book 1. of the Maſs, chap. 27. in theſe words, The oblation which is made after conſecration, belongs to the entireneſs of the Sacrament, but is not of its eſſence; which I prove, becauſe neither our Lord nor his Apoſtles, did make this oblation at the firſt, as we have demonſtrated out of Gregory. The Jeſuite Salmeron in Tom. 13. of his Commentaries on the Epiſtles of St. Paul, makes a Catalogue of unwritten Traditions, in which he puts the Eccleſiaſtical Hierarchie, the worſhiping of Images, the Maſs, the manner of ſacrificing, and the tradition that Jeſus Chriſt did offer a ſacrifice in the Bread and Wine. Card. Baronius in his Annals on the year 53. freely confeſſeth that the ſacrifice of the Euchariſt is an unwritten Tradition. A ſtrange thing that the Maſs, which is the foundation of the Romiſh Church (for the Doctors require nothing of the people, but that they ſhould go to Maſs) cannot be found to have been inſtituted or commanded by Jeſus Chriſt. And the truth is, if Jeſus Chriſt in the celebration of the Euchariſt had offered unto God his Father a ſacrifice of his Body and Bloud, propitiatory for the ſins of the living and dead, then there had been no need that he ſhould have been ſacrificed again on the Croſs, becauſe, having already expiated our ſins in the ſacrifice of the Euchariſt, there was no need he ſhould expiate them again on the Croſs. To this I add, that St. Paul, Epheſ. 4. 11. mentions the Offices which Jeſus Chriſt left his Church when he aſcended into Heaven, in theſe words, He gave ſome Apoſtles, and ſome Prophets, and ſome Evangeliſts, and ſome Paſtors, and Teachers, but makes no mention at all of the Sacrificers of Chriſts body and bloud, nor in 1 Tim. nor in the Epiſtle to Titus, when he deſcribes the duty of Biſhops, Presbyters, and Deacons, without making the leaſt mention of this ſacrificing of Chriſts body and bloud.

3. The ſecond Argument is drawn from the definition of a Sacrifice, as it is given us by our Adverſaries, Card. Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Maſs, chap. 2. defines it thus: Sacrifice is an external oblation made to God alone, whereby in acknowledgment of humane infirmity, and the divine Majeſty, the lawful Miniſter conſecrates by a myſtical ceremony, and deſtroys ſomething that is ſenſible and permanent. From theſe laſt words, viz. that the lawful Miniſter deſtroys ſomething that is ſenſible, I form two Arguments which deſtroy the ſacrifice of the Maſs.

The firſt is this, In every ſacrifice the thing ſacrificed muſt fall under our ſenſes; for our Adverſaries ſay it is a ſenſible thing: But the body and bloud of Chriſt, which are pretended to be ſacrificed in the Maſs, under the accidents of the bread and wine, do not fall under our ſenſes, as we find by experience: Therefore the body and bloud of Chriſt, which are pretended to be under the accidents of the bread and wine, are not the thing ſacrificed.

The ſecond Argument is this: In every true ſacrifice the thing ſacrificed muſt be utterly deſtroyed; that is, it muſt be ſo changed, that it muſt ceaſe to be what it was before, as Bellarmin ſaith in expreſs terms in the place above cited: But in the pretended Sacrifice of the Maſs Chriſts body and bloud are not deſtroyed, for Jeſus Chriſt dieth no more, Rom. 6. Therefore in the pretended Sacrifice of the Maſs, the body and bloud of Chriſt are not the thing ſacrificed.

4. To theſe two Arguments Bellarmin in Book 1. of the Maſs, ch. 27. and other Romiſh Doctors anſwer, that Chriſts body ſimply is not the thing ſacrificed in the Maſs, but it is Chriſts body, as it is under the ſpecies of the bread; and that it is in reference to the ſpecies of the bread, that Chriſts body is ſenſible and viſible.

Secondly, They anſwer that in the ſacrifice of the Maſs Chriſts body is deſtroyed in reſpect of its ſacramental being, but not in reſpect of its natural being; for when it is eaten in the ſacrament it ceaſeth to be under the ſpecies of the bread.

5 To theſe anſwers I reply, Firſt, That Chriſt body is not viſible by the ſpecies of the bread, becauſe, as our Adverſaries ſay, that hides it from us, and hinders us from ſeeing it. And although a ſubſtance may be ſaid to be viſible, and cognizable by its accidents, yet it is never ſo by the accidents of another ſubſtance; and conſequently Jeſus Chriſt may be ſaid to be viſible by his own accidents, but not by the accidents of the bread, which are juſt alike both in the conſecrated and unconſecrated hoſts; and 'tis a ridiculous ſhift to ſay that Chriſts body is viſible under the ſpecies of the bread, becauſe that ſpecies is viſible; for as we cannot ſee Wine that is in a Hogſhead, becauſe we ſee the Hogſhead; and we cannot ſee Money that is in a Purſe cloſed, becauſe we ſee the Purſe; ſo neither can we ſee the body under the ſpecies of the bread, becauſe we ſee the ſpecies; for as our Adverſaries ſay, that ſpecies hinders us from ſeeing it.

6. Secondly, I ſay, That by the ſacramental being is underſtood, only an accidental being of Jeſus Chriſt (for example his preſence in the Sacrament) or elſe beſides that, is underſtood his ſubſtantial being too. If his ſubſtantial being be alſo underſtood (ſeeing the ſubſtantial being of a thing is nothing elſe but its ſubſtance and nature) then it will follow that if Jeſus Chriſt be deſtroyed in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt in reſpect of his ſubſtantial being, he muſt alſo be deſtroyed in reſpect of his natural being, which is contrary to what the Apoſtle ſaith, Rom. 6. that Jeſus Chriſt dieth no more. If an accidental being of Jeſus Chriſt be only underſtood (for example, his preſence in the Sacrament) then theſe abſurdities will follow, viz.

Firſt, That the ſacrifice of the Maſs will be the ſacrifice of an accident only, and not of Jeſus Chriſt, becauſe the preſence of Jeſus Chriſt is not Jeſus Chriſt himſelf, but an accident of him.

Secondly, It will follow that the ſacrifice of the Maſs, and that of the Croſs will not be the ſame ſacrifice in reference to the thing ſacrificed, becauſe Jeſus Chriſt, and his preſence are not the ſame thing; Jeſus Chriſt being a ſubſtance, and his preſence an accident, which is contrary to the deciſion of the Council of Trent, which hath determined that the ſacrifice of the Maſs, and that of the Croſs, are the ſame in reference to the thing ſacrificed.

Thirdly, It will follow that the thing which is deſtroyed in the Sacrament, is not the ſame with that, which was produced there, becauſe there is only an accident deſtroyed, whereas a ſubſtance was produced by Tranſubſtantiation, which is a ſubſtantial converſion, as hath been ſufficiently proved.

Fourthly, It will follow that the ſacrifice of the Maſs will be offered in the Prieſts ſtomach only, becauſe this preſence is not deſtroyed till the Prieſt hath eaten the hoſt; and conſequently, the ſacrifice of the Maſs will be offered after the Maſs, for this preſence is only deſtroyed by the deſtruction of the accidents; and commonly theſe accidents are not deſtroyed till after Maſs is ſaid.

Fifthly, It will follow that the juſtice of God will ceaſe to be the ſame; for whereas heretofore it could not be ſatisfied but by the death of Chriſt, and by the deſtruction of his natural being; now God is appeaſed, our ſins expiated, and Gods juſtice ſatisfied by the deſtruction of his ſacramental being only; for they will have it, that the ſacrifice of the Maſs is propitiatory for the ſins of the living and the dead.

7. The third Argument is drawn from theſe words of the Apoſtle, Heb. 9. Almoſt all things are by the Law purged with bloud, and without ſhedding of bloud is no remiſſion: It was therefore neceſſary that the patterns of things in the Heavens ſhould be purified with theſe, but the heavenly things themſelves with better ſacrifices▪ then theſe. From which words I form this Argument. There is no propitiation, or remiſſion of ſins without ſheding of bloud, as the Apoſtle ſaith: But in the Maſs there is no ſheding of bloud (for it is called an Unbloudy ſacrifice:) Therefore in the Maſs there is no propitiation or remiſſion of ſins; and conſequently no propitiatory ſacrifice for ſin. This Argument may be thus confirmed: Under the Old Teſtament there was no propitiation, or purification, without ſheding of bloud, and the types of heavenly things were ſo purified, as the Apoſtle ſaith, Heb. 9. Therefore under the New Teſtament alſo there can be no propitiation or purification without ſheding of bloud, and heavenly things, being repreſented by the legal types, muſt be purified by a more excellent ſacrifice, viz. by the ſheding of Chriſts bloud. And although the Apoſtle uſeth the word Sacrifices in the plural number, yet we muſt underſtand the only ſacrifice of Chriſt on the Croſs; becauſe when one thing is oppoſed to many, it is often expreſſed in the plural number; as when Baptiſm, which is but one, is called Baptiſms, Heb. 6. 2. But the only ſacrifice of the Croſs of Chriſt in the Text above cited, Heb. 9. 23. is oppoſed to the old Sacrifices, which were types and figures of the ſacrifice of the Croſs.

8. The fourth Argument is drawn from the words of the Apoſtle, Heb. 10. 16. This is the Covenant which I will make with them after thoſe days ſaith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them, and their ſins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remiſſion of theſe is, there is no more offering for ſin. Whence I form this Argument: Where there is remiſſion of ſins there is no need of an oblation, or a propitiatory ſacrifice for ſin, as the Apoſtle ſaith. But in the Chriſtian Church, by vertue of the New Teſtament, or New Covenant, confirmed by the bloud of Chriſt, there is remiſſion of ſins, Heb. 10. 16, 17. Therefore in the Chriſtian Church now adays, there is no need of an oblation, or propitiatory ſacrifice, and conſequently no need of the ſacrifice of the Maſs.

9. The fifth Argument is drawn from the words of the Apoſtle, Heb. 9. Jeſus Chriſt offereth not himſelf often, as the High Prieſt entereth into the holy place every year with the bloud of others; for then muſt he often have ſuffered from the foundation of the World, but now once in the end of the World, hath he appeared to put away ſin by the ſacrifice of himſelf. And as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment, ſo Chriſt was once offered to bear the ſins of many, and unto them that look for him ſhall he appear the ſecond time without ſin unto ſalvation. This is confirmed by the words of the ſame Apoſtle, Heb. 10. The Law having a ſhadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with thoſe ſacrifices which they offered year by year, continually make the comers thereunto perfect, for then would they not have ceaſed to be offered, becauſe the worſhipers once purged, ſhould have had no more conſcience of ſins. But in thoſe a remembrance is made again of ſins every year; for it is not poſſible that the bloud of bulls and of goats ſhould take away ſins, &c. And every High Prieſt ſtandeth dayly miniſtring and offering often times the ſame ſacrifices which can never take away ſins; but this man after he had offered one ſacrifice for ſins, for ever ſate down on the right hand of God. For by one offering he hath for ever perfected them that are ſanctified: which is conformable to what he had ſaid a little before, that we are ſanctified by the offering of the body of Jeſus Chriſt once for all. From all which I form theſe Arguments.

10. Firſt the old ſacrifices were reiterated, for the Apoſtle ſaith that the High Prieſt entereth into the holy place every year with the bloud of others: but the ſacrifice of Jeſus Chriſt muſt not be reiterated, for the ſame Apoſtle ſaith that Jeſus Chriſt offereth not himſelf often; and that he hath once appeared to put away ſin by the ſacrifice of himſelf: Therefore the ſacrifice of the Maſs is not the ſacrifice of the Croſs reiterated, or the reiteration of the ſacrifice of the Croſs, as our Adverſaries would have it.

11. Secondly, The Apoſtle adding, elſe he ſhould often have ſuffered from the foundation of the World, Makes it apparent that Chriſt cannot be offered without ſuffering: For, as he that ſhould ſay, this is not fire elſe it would be hot, doth neceſſarily preſuppoſe that fire is hot; and as he that ſhould ſay he is no man elſe he would be rational, doth neceſſarily preſuppoſe that man is rational: ſo when the Apoſtle ſaith, that Jeſus Chriſt offereth not himſelf often, otherwiſe he ſhould often bave ſuffered, doth neceſſarily preſuppoſe that Jeſus Chriſt cannot offer himſelf without ſuffering▪ But Jeſus Chriſt doth not ſuffer every day in the Maſs: Therefore he is not offered every day in the Maſs by the miniſtry of Prieſts.

12, Thirdly, Theſe words, from the foundation of the World, are of great weight, for 'tis as much as if the Apoſtle had ſaid, if the only ſacrifice of Chriſt on the Croſs be not ſufficient to take away ſins which ſhall be committed hereafter, it follows that it was not ſufficient to take away ſins which have been committed heretofore from the creation of the World; for it is very unſuitable that the ſacrifice of Chriſt on the Croſs ſhould have more vertue before it was offered then ſince: But the ſacrifice of Chriſt on the Croſs, had the vertue to take away ſins before it was, otherwiſe (ſaith the Apoſtle) he ſhould often have ſuffered from the foundation of the World: Therefore it hath alſo vertue to take away ſins committed ſince it was, and conſequently there is no need that it ſhould be reiterated in the Maſs.

13. Fourthly, The Apoſtles compariſon is conſiderable, the ſenſe whereof is this: As men ſuffer death but once, and after death appear no more till the day of the reſurrection, and day of judgment; ſo Chriſt hath offered himſelf to his Father once for all on the Croſs to take away ſins, and will be no more on earth until he comes to judge the quick and the dead. This utterly deſtroys the Maſs, in which Jeſus Chriſt is ſaid to be offered and ſacrificed continually by the miniſtry of Prieſts.

14. Fifthly, Sacrifices that take away ſins, and ſanctifie thoſe that come thereunto, ought not to be reiterated; for the only reaſon which the Apoſtle alledgeth, why the old ſacrifices of the Law were reiterated, is becauſe they could not take away ſins, nor ſanctifie the comers thereunto as appears by the Text above cited. But the ſacrifice of Jeſus Chriſt on the Croſs, takes away ſins and ſanctifies thoſe that come thereunto: Therefore the ſacrifice of Jeſus Chriſt on the Croſs, ought not to be reiterated, and conſequently is not reiterated in the Maſs.

15. If Jeſus Chriſt did offer himſelf a ſacrifice on the Croſs that he might ſanctifie us for ever, and purchaſe eternal redemption for us, then it is evident that the fruit and efficacy of this ſacrifice endures for ever, and that we muſt have recourſe to no other ſacrifice but to that of the Croſs: But Jeſus Chriſt did offer himſelf a ſacrifice on the Croſs, that he might ſanctifie us for ever, and purchaſe eternal redemption for us, as appears by the Texts aforeſaid: Therefore the efficacy of the ſacrifice of the Croſs endures for ever, and we muſt have recourſe to no other Sacrifice but to that of the Croſs. In a word, either we muſt confeſs that the ſacrifice of the Croſs hath no vertue to take away ſins, and to ſanctifie us for ever, (which is contrary to what the Apoſtle ſaith) or elſe if it hath this vertue and ſufficiency, then Jeſus Chriſt hath offered one only ſacrifice once for all, and conſequently is not offered dayly in the Maſs by the Miniſtry of Prieſts.

16. Laſtly, The Apoſtle almoſt throughout the whole Epiſtle to the Hebren▪s, ſaith, that Jeſus Chriſt was conſtituted and conſecrated by his Father, High Prieſt for ever; and particularly chap. 7. he ſaith, That many were made Prieſts, becauſe they were not ſuffered to continue by reaſon of death; but Jeſus Chriſt becauſe he continueth forever, hath an unchangeable Prieſthood; and that he is able to ſave them to the uttermoſt that come unto God by him, ſeeing he ever liveth to make interceſſion for them; and conſequently he hath no need of Vicars or companions in his Prieſthood.

17. In anſwer to theſe Arguments the Romiſh Doctors are wont to ſay that the ſacrifice of the Maſs is the ſame with that of the Croſs, in reſpect of the eſſence of the Sacrifice, the ſame thing being offered in both, viz. the body and bloud of Chriſt by the ſame Prieſt, viz. by Jeſus Chriſt. But it differs in reſpect of the manner of offering; for on the Croſs Jeſus Chriſt offered himſelf bloudily, that is, when he died he ſhed his bloud for mankind; but in the Maſs he offers himſelf unbloudily, that is, without ſheding his bloud, and without dying: On the Croſs Jeſus Chriſt was deſtroyed in reſpect of his natural being, but in the Maſs he is deſtroyed in reſpect of his ſacramental being. They add, that all the Arguments drawn from the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, reſpect only that bloudy oblation which was once offered on the Croſs; but beſides this bloudy ſacrifice there is another that is unbloudy, which is daily offered in the Maſs. Laſtly, They ſay, that the ſacrifice of the Croſs is primitive and original, but this of the Maſs repreſentative, commemorative, and applicative of that of the Croſs as the Council hath it in its 22. Seſſion.

18. To theſe diſtinctions I reply, That the ſacrifice of the Maſs doth not differ from that of the Croſs in reſpect of the manner only, (which is but an accidental difference) but it differs in reſpect of eſſence too.

Firſt, Becauſe the natural death of Jeſus Chriſt is of the eſſence of the ſacrifice of the Croſs: But the ſacrifice of the Maſs doth not comprehend the natural death of Jeſus Chriſt, for Jeſus Chriſt dieth no more, Rom. 6. Therefore the ſacrifice of the Maſs doth not comprehend that which is of the eſſence of the ſacrifice of the Croſs, and conſequently differs from it eſſentially, and not in reſpect of the manner only.

Secondly, Becauſe the repreſentation of a thing differs eſſentially from the thing repreſented: For example, The Kings Picture differs eſſentially from the King. Alſo the memorial of a thing differs eſſentially from the thing whereof it is a memorial: For example, The celebration of the Paſsover, which was a memorial of the Angels favourable paſſing over the houſes of the Iſraelites, differs eſſentially from that paſſing over. And laſtly, the application of a thing differs eſſentially from it: For example, The application of a Plaiſter differs eſſentially from the Plaiſter. But according to the determination of the Council of Trent, in Seſſion 22. the ſacrifice of the Maſs is repreſentative, commemorative, and applicative of that of the Croſs: Therefore the ſacrifice of the Maſs differs eſſentially from that of the Croſs.

Thirdly, Becauſe the ſacrifice of the Croſs is of an infinite value, and conſequently ought not to be reiterated; for its value being infinite, it is ſufficient to take away all ſins paſt, preſent, and to come, as Bellarmin ſaith Book I. of the Maſs, chap. 4. But the ſacrifice of the Maſs is of a finite price and value, according to the ſame Bellarmin and other Romiſh Doctors; at which we may juſtly wonder, ſeeing, as our Adverſaries ſay, it differs not from the ſacrifice of the Croſs, either in reſpect of the thing ſacrificed, or in reſpect of the chief Prieſt, and yet from theſe the ſacrifice hath all its price and value.

19. Secondly, I ſay that an unbloudy propitiatory ſacrifice is a feigned, and an imaginary thing, and that the Arguments drawn from the Epiſtle to the Hebrews, do wholy deſtroy it.

Firſt, Becauſe it is ſaid, Heb. 9. that without ſheding of bloud there is no remiſſion of ſins: Therefore in the unbloudy ſacrifice of the Maſs, there can be no remiſſion of ſins, and conſequently it cannot be a propitiatory ſacrifice for ſin.

Secondly, Becauſe Jeſus Chriſt cannot be offered without ſuffering; for the Apoſtle ſaith, Heb. 6. Jeſus Chriſt offereth not himſelf often, otherwiſe he ſhould often have ſuffered: But the ſacrifice of Jeſus Chriſt with ſuffering, is a bloudy ſacrifice: Therefore there is no unbloudy ſacrifice.

Thirdly, Becauſe the bloudy ſacrifice of the Croſs, being of an infinite value, hath purchaſed an eternal redemption, Heb. 9. and hath taken away all ſins, paſt, preſent, and to come. Whence it follows that there is no other ſacrifice either bloudy or unbloudy, that can purchaſe the pardon of our ſins▪ the ſacrifice of the Croſs having ſufficiently done it.

Fourthly, Becauſe the juſtice of God requires that ſins ſhall be expiated by the puniſhment that is due to them; and this is ſo true that the wrath of God could not be appeaſed but by the bloudy and ignominious death of the Croſs: Therefore the juſtice of God muſt have changed its nature if ſins can be expiated in the Maſs without pain, or ſuffering.

20. Thirdly, To the diſtinction of Primitive ſacrifice, which was offered on the Croſs, and repreſentative, commemorative, and applicative, which is daily offered in the Maſs, I reply, Firſt, That what the Council of Trent ſaith in Seſſion 22. viz. that in the Euchariſt there is a ſacrifice repreſentative, commemorative, and applicative of that of the Maſs, may bear a good ſenſe, viz. that there is in it a repreſentation, commemoration, and application of the ſacrifice of the Croſs, viz. a repreſentation, becauſe the bread broken, repreſents the body broken; and the wine poured into the cup, repreſents the bloud of Chriſt ſhed for the remiſſion of ſins: a commemoration, becauſe all that is done in it, is done in remembrance of Jeſus Chriſt and his death according to his own command in theſe words, Do this in remembrance of me, and according to what St. Paul ſaith, 1 Cor. 11. As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do ſhew the Lords death till he come: and an application, becauſe the merit of the ſacrifice of the Croſs is applied to us not only by the word, but alſo by the Sacraments, as we ſhall ſhew hereafter. But our Adverſaries are not content with this, for they will have it that in the celebration of the Euchariſt, there is offered a true and proper ſacrifice propitiatory for the ſins of the living and the dead, which hath been already refuted at large.

Secondly, I ſay that the application of the ſacrifice of the Croſs may be conſidered on Gods part, or on mans part: on Gods part, when he offers Jeſus Chriſt to us, with all his benefits, both in his Word and Sacraments: on mans part, when by a true and lively faith, working by love, we embrace Jeſus Chriſt with all his benefits offered to us both in his Word and Sacraments. And this is it that Jeſus Chriſt teacheth us, St. John 3. in theſe words, As Moſes lifted up the ſerpent in the Wilderneſs, even ſo muſt the Son of man be lifted up, (viz. on the Croſs) that whoſoever believeth in him ſhould not periſh, but have eternal life: For God ſo loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, (viz. to die) that whoſoever believeth in him ſhould not periſh, but have everlaſting life: he doth not ſay, whoſoever ſacrificeth him in the Maſs, but whoſoever believeth, &c. And St. Paul ſhews it clearly in theſe words, God hath ſet forth Jeſus Chriſt to be a propitiation through faith in his bloud; he doth not ſay through the ſacrifice of the Maſs but through faith. And we really and truly apply the ſacrifice of Chriſts Croſs when we have recourſe to him, as a man applies a Plaiſter when he hath recourſe to it, and lays it on the wound: But the recourſe or refuge of a penitent ſinner to the ſacrifice of the Croſs for obtaining mercy from God, is nothing elſe but Faith. As for the diſtinction of the ſacramental and natural being of Jeſus Chriſt, it hath been already refuted in the 6. Number.

21. I ſhall conclude this diſcourſe with the teſtimony of Thomas Aquinas, the moſt famous of all the Romiſh Doctors, and called by our Adverſaries, the Angelical Doctor. This Thomas in Part. 3. Queſt. 83. Artic. 1. having propoſed this Queſtion, viz. Whether Chriſt be ſacrificed in the Sacrament of the Euchariſt, he concludes with theſe memorable words. The celebration of this Sacrament is very fitly called a ſacrificing of Chriſt, as well becauſe it is the repreſentation of Chriſts Paſſion, as becauſe by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Paſſion. And afterward he gives his anſwer, in theſe words: I anſwer, We muſt ſay that the celebration of this Sacrament is called a ſacrificing of Chriſt, in two reſpects. Firſt, Becauſe (as Auguſtine to Simplicius ſaith) we are wont to give to Images the name of the things whereof they are Images, as when we ſee Pictures on a Wall, or in a Frame, we ſay this is Cicero, that is Saluſt, &c. But the celebration of this Sacrament (as hath been ſaid above) is a repreſentative Image of Chriſts Paſſion; which Paſſion is the true ſacrificing of Chriſt, and ſo the celebration of this Sacrament is the ſacrificing of Christ. Secondly, The celebration of this Sacrament is called the ſacrificing of Chriſt in regard of the effect of Chriſts Paſſion becauſe by this Sacrament we are made partakers of the fruit of the Lords Paſſion. Let the Romaniſts keep to this deciſion of their Angelical Doctor, and we ſhall agree with them in this point; for I am confident that there is not one of the Reformed Religion but will ſubſcribe this true doctrine of Thomas Aquinas.

1. IN the two firſt Chapters we have anſwered the two principal Objections of the Romiſh Doctors, drawn from theſe words, This is my body, &c. and from theſe, he that eateth my fleſh and drinketh my bloud, hath eternal life, &c. Now we muſt anſwer the reſt.