- §. 6. (4) Tranfubftantiation contradicts the Reason of Mankind in thefe Respects. 1. In respect of the Nature of a Body. 2. In refpect of the Nature of a fubftantial Change. §. 7. (1.) It contradicts the Reason of Mankind about the Nature of a Body. For a Body must be in fome Place, and cannot be in more Places than one at once. But if the Bread be the Body of Christ, and every piece of Bread his whole Body, and that too in all Parts of the World, where the Eucharift is Adminiftred at the fame time, and his Body be alfo always in HeaAds 3.21. ven, which must retain him till the time of the Reftitution of all Things: Either there must be many Bodies of Chrift (which cannot be faid) or one, and the fame Body must be in a Thoufand Places at once, which is not one, but an heap of complicated Contradictions. For then the fame Body at the fame time may be wholly above it felf, and wholly below it felf, within and without it felf, on the left Hand, and on the right Hand of it felf, and round about it felf; the fame Body at the fame time may move from it felf, and lie ftill on the Altar, be Eat by the Prieft, and not Eat by him: It may be one (that is) undivided from it felf, and at the fame time as far divided from it felf, as Paris is from Rome, as Trd from London. Chrift's Body was a real Human Body, and therefore could no more be in many Places at once, than the Bodies of other Men can, to whom he was like in all Things, except Sin. Nor will it help the Matter to fay, it was a glorify'd Body. For the Bread is Chrift's Body as Dead, and not as Glorify'd, nor doth the Glorification of a Body alter the Nature, but only the Qualities of the Body. Heb. 4. 15. Cor. 11. 26. §. 8. (2.) Tranfubftantiation contradicts the Nature of a fubftantial Change, wherein the Thing is destroy'd, that is converted into another, and that Thing is newly produc'd, into which it is converted, and the Effects and Properties of the Thing con verted cease to be perceiv'd, and only those of that Thing it is converted into are perceptible. For Inftance, when our Saviour turn'd Water into Wine, the Water ceas'd to be, and Wine was produc'd a-new, and the Colour and Tafte of the Water remain'd no longer, but were chang'd into the Colour and Taste 1 Cor. 10. 16, of Wine. of Wine. But in Transubstantiation it is not fo, Bread remains 17. 11. 26, Bread, being fo call'd five times by St, Paul after Confecration, and the Wine the Fruit of the Vine, as it is call'd by our Saviour Mt. 26. 27, himself: Chrift's Body and Blood is not newly produc'd, for 27, 28. then then he would receive a new Being which he had not before, which cannot be pretended. And after all the pretended Change, the Colour and Taft of Bread and Wine remain ftill. And fure nothing can be more abfurd, than to pretend a fubftantial Change, where all Circumstances are fo contrary to what always accompanies a fubftantial Change. If they pretend a Miracle, I have in the miraculous Change of Water into Wine fhew'd thefe Laws are obferv'd, and may add that their Pretences to the contrary here, $9. (3.) Contradict the reason of Mankind as to the Nature of Miracle. To which two Things are necessary, that a supernatural Effect be wrought, and that this Effect be evident to Sense. And if the first be without the latter, it is, as to all the Ends and Purposes of a Miracle, as if it were not, and can be no Proof of any thing, while it needs Proof it felf, that any thing SupernatuTal is wrought. On this Account, if Tranfubftantiation were true, tho' it were very Supernatural, it could be no Miracle, because there is no fenfible Appearance of it. That a thing should remain in all appearance just as it was, can have no Wonder in it; and if that be a Miracle, there needs nothing but Impudence to make a thousand every Day. I proceed to consider, §. 10. (5.) That Tranfubstantiation is repugnant to Humanity. For nothing can certainly be more inhumane, than to pretend to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of a Man: The Turks upbraid Chriftians for this Doctrin as more cruel toward Chrift, than the Jews that crucify'd him, because they pretend to devour him, and are his Canabals as they were his Murtherers. When Chrift fpake of eating his Flesh and drinking bis Blood as necessary to eternal Life, the Jews understanding him in this grofs Senfe, cry out, Fò. 6.52.This is an hard Saying, who can hear it? And fome of his Difciples v. 60. were fo fcandaliz'd at it, that from that time they went back and walked no more with him. To remove this Scandal Chrift explains himself, that the Words he had faid unto them were Spirit and v. 63. Life. i. e. they are not to be understood literally, but in a Spiritual Senfe. And it's highly improbable, that Chrift, who was fo careful to prevent that grofs Conception of the Jews, fhould afterward inftitute an oral Manducation of his Flesh. A piece of Barbarity, that humane Nature under the greatest Degeneracy could not but abbor.. S. 11. (6. Lastly, Transubstantiation was a Doctrin not known to, much lefs believed by the antient Christians. Which will appear from thefe four Confiderations. 14. That v. 66.. Ads 28. 22. 1. That the Heathens never object this against them. 2. That the first Chriftian Writers make such Objections against Heathenism. 3. And against Hereticks, as are inconfiftent with their Belief of this. 4. Antient Liturgies contain Expressions inconfiftent with it. §. 12. (1.) It's well known, that Chriftianity was a Sect at first every where spoken against: And that the Heathens spared not to load Chriftianity with all the Imputations they could find against it. They upbraided them with believing a God that was born, and that died; with believing a Refurrection and other leffer Matters, which to them feem'd abfurd. But they never objected this against them, that they made their God of Bread, and then eat him: Which if Tranfubftantiation had been a Doctrin of thofe Times, fuch inquifitive and learned Heathens as Celfus, Porphyry, especially Julian, who was educated a Christian, and a Clergy-man, could not have been ignorant of, and would not have spar'd to expofe its Abfurdities, if they had known it. Their Silence then is a good Argument, that no fuch Doctrin was receiv'd into the Belief of that Age. (a) There is a Passage of Irenaus, tho' not now in his Works, yet preferv'd by Oecumenius, in his Comment on Pet. c. 3. to this Purpofe; that when fome Greeks had taken the Servants of fome Chriftian Catechumens (fuch as had never been admitted to the Sacrament) and had urg'd them by Torture to discover to them fome of the Chriftians Secrets, they told them, that they had heard of their Masters, that the Divine Communion was the Blood and Body of Christ, thinking it was real Blood and Flesh. Upon this the Greeks put Sanctus and Blandina to the Torture to make them confefs it. To whom Blandina boldly answer'd, How would they endure to do this, who by way of Exercife or Abftinence do not eat that Flesh which may law (a) Cecumen. Comment. in (1 Pet. 3. fecundum noftram diftributionem capitum) 1 Pet. 2. 12. p. 448. Edit. Paris. Εἶτα μαθῶν τὶ παρὰ τέλων δῆθεν ἀπόῤῥητον, περὶ χειςιανῶν ἀναγκάζοντες, οἱ δὅλοι ἔτοι μὴ ἔχολες πῶς τὸ τοῖς ἀναγκά ζεσι καθ ̓ ἡδονὴν ἐρῶν παρέσον ήκεον τῶν δεσπόζων τὴν θείαν μετάληψιν αἷμα και σώμα είναι χεις, αυτοὶ νομίσαντες τω όντι αιμα καὶ σάρκα είναι, τέλο ἐξεῖ πον τοῖς ἐκζητέσι. Οἱ δὲ λαβόντες ὡς αυτόχρημα τόξο τελείσαι χρισιανοῖς, καὶ δὲ τέλο τοῖς ἄλλοις έλλησιν εξεπόμπευον, καὶ τὰς μάρτυρας Σάγκιον και Βλαν δίναν ὁμολογῆσαι διὰ Βασάνων ἠνάγκαζον. Οἷς ευςίχως Βλανδίνα έπαρα. σιάζατο, πῶς ἂν ἐιπᾶσα τίλων ἀνάχοιντο οἱ μὴ δὲ τῶν ἐφειμλύνων κρεῶν δι ̓ ἄσκησιν ἀπαλαύοντες. fully fully be eaten; fo that thefe Martyrs deny'd it as a falfe Accufation, that they literally eat the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament. There is no other Paffage in Antiquity, that shews any fuch thing objected against Christians as Tranfubstantiation, and this proves it was a Calumny, and no Part of their Belief. §. 13. (2.) The Objections made by the first Christian Apologifts against Heathenifm hew, that they knew nothing of Tranfubftantiation. For, 1. They upbraid them for Worshiping Gods of their own making. Aug. de cic. So St. Augustine at large Ironically jeers them for their Art, which Dei 1. 8. c. 24. exceeded all other Inventions, by which they made the Gods they worship'd. But if he, and the Church in his time, had believ'd as the Church of Rome does, they would not have made fuch a Wonder of that Art. For your Priests pretend every Day to do this at the Mafs. They stick not to boast themselves the Crea- Canon. Mije. tors of their Creator. Biel. Sed. 4. in S. 14. 2. They upbraided Heathens for worshiping Gods, that might be stole or devour'd by Vermine. Upon Laban's charging Rachel with stealing his Gods, fays St. Chryfoftome, A notable Fool- Chryfoft. kom. ery! Are thy Gods such as may be stoln? Art thou not asham'd 57. in Gen. to fay, Why have ye ftoin my Gods? But would he have faid this, 30. 31. if he had been of the Opinion of your Church, who keep the Hoft under Lock and Key, left it should be ftola by Men or Vermine? §. 15. 3. They upbraided Heathens for worshiping Gods, that might be eaten. How oft does Minutius Falix object this, that the Heathens facrific'd what they worship'd, and devour'd what they ador'd? Origen, represents it as great Folly for fome Nations to worship what others eat as Food; fure then thefe Fathers never dream'd of a Corporeal Change in the Elements of the Lord's Supper, fince then Chriftians would have been as abfurd as Heathens in eating the God whom they ador'd. Hence Averroes, an Arabian Phyfitian, and a Mahometan, who liv'd about the time of the Lateran Council, that first decreed Tranfubftantiation, A. D. 1215. fays thus. I have travell'd over the World, and have confider'd the Religions of moft Countries, and yet have found none (Chriftiana deteriorem) worse than the Chriftian, quia Deum quem colunt dentibus devorant, because they tear with their Teeth that God whom they worship. §. 16. (3.) I come next to reprefent the Difcourfes of the antient Fathers against Hereticks, inconfiftent with the Belief of Tranfubftantiation. As, 1. Against the Manichees, who, to prove an Opposition between the Law and the Gospel, alledg'd, that whereas in the Gof D d pel pei Chrit faid, none was able to defroy the Soul of Man, the Law faid, that the Soul was the Biood, which Men are able to destroy. To this St. Augustine answers, by explaining thefe Words, The Blood is the Soul, that its meaning is, The Blood fignifies the Soul, as the Rack is Corit, i. e. fgnifes Chrift. And our Saviour did not doubt to fay, This is my Body, when he gave the Sign of mis Body: Which proves this to have been St. Augustine's Ŏpinion, I nat as toe Flood is the Soul, and as the Rock is Christ, fo the Bread is Christ's Body, not by any fubftantial Conversion, but by Signification of it, fuch as excicdes a Corporeal Prefence.. For if St. Augustine had thought the Bread torn'd fubftantially into Chrift's Body, the Manickeer had not been prefs'd by this Argament, but might have fairly reply'd, that as Bread not only fignify'd Chrift's Body but contain'd it too, fo the Blood not only Lenifes but contains the Scal. Ta St. Augustine's time then, the Church did not underftand, this is my Body, in the sense of Tranfubftantiation. §. 17. 2. The Marcionites, Valentinians and Manicheer, that deay'd the reality of the Incarnation, and faid, Chrift had only a Body in appearance, the Fathers refuted by Argu ments inconfiftent with their belief of Tranfubftantiation. As --1 From the evidence of Sense, which confutes a Papist as (1) Tertul. de well as a Marcionite. (a)-2. They argue, that the Sacrament anima c. 17. p. could not be duly ftyl'd, the Image, Figure, Type and Me 276. Edit. Paris. 1675. Edit. Paris. morial of Chrift's real Flesh, if he had no real Flesh and did not really fuffer. When Chrift faid, this is my Body, he meant (fays Tertullian) the Figure of my Body, and it could be no Figure of his Body, unless his Body bad been true; for a Phantafme can have no Figure. Now they that thought it rea- . fonable to believe the Teftimony of our Senfes, and that the Sacrament was only a fign of Chrift's Body, could not believe Tranfubftantiation. §. 18. 3. Against the Encratite, who thinking it unlawful to driak Wine, they confuted by this Argument, that Chrift himfelt drunk Wine, and commanded Chriftians to drink it in the Clemens. Alex. Sacrament. It is Clemens Alexandrinus's Argument, Be ye fure Pedag. 1. 2. C. (fays that Father to thofe Hereticks) Christ drunk Wine. For be 2. p. 153. B. bleffed the Wine, and said, Take, drink ye, this is my Blood, the Blood But that the Thing which had been biessed, was Wine; of the Vine. be fhews again, faying to his Disciples, I will not drink of the Fruit of ibis Vine, till I drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom. But this Argument had been none at all, if the Wine in the Sacrament had been truly Blood and not Wine. Had Tranfubftantiation been known then, it would have furnish'd 1629, thofe |