means of these emblems: even "Nicodemus, a master in Israel," could not understand the effectual work of God in conversion, when Jesus explained it to him under the emblem of a birth; and there fore the Saviour said to him, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you heavenly things?" John iii. 12. When Jesus spake of enjoying fellowship with him under the emblem of eating his flesh, and drinking his blood, the Capernaites could not discern these things spiritually, but imagined that he spoke of a bodily eating of his flesh, and drinking of his blood, which appeared like foolishness to them, and caused them to say, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat? this is a hard sayings who can hear it?" John vi. 52, 60. Do the Papists, the true offspring of the Capernaites, conduct better, when they say that the bread and wine are changed into the very body and blood of Christ, because he said of the signs in the supper, "This is my body, this is my blood," when these things are not the very body and blood of Christ, but, as the text saith, the communion of his body and blood? In order to illustrate this we must I. Exhibit the state of the controversy, III. Answer the objections of the adversaries. I. The state of the controversy is whether "the bread and wine be changed into the very body and blood of Christ," as the instructor' asks in the seventy eighth question. Therefore we have not to do here so much with the Lutherans, who fancy that Christ is present by a consubstantiation, in, with, and among the bread and wine, in a bodily manner, and that we eat and drink him in this manner. This erroneous opinion proceeds from a misunderstanding of the omnipresence of Christ, as though he were present every where as man; but we will not busy ourselves purposely with this, because we have already proved on the eighteenth Lord's day, that Christ is not present every where with his body, and because the arguments which we will produce against the opinion of which we shall speak now, will for the most part confute the opinion of the Lutherans also. The instructor proposes chiefly the controversy between us and the Papists, who fancy that the bread and wine of the supper are changed into the very body and blood of Christ by a transubstantiation, or substantial change. They imagine that upon the low mumbling of these five Latin words, hoc enim est meum corpus, "for this is my body," by a lawful priest, who hath a right intention, the bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, or that the sub stance of the bread and wine vanisheth, and that the body and blood 493667 of Christ descend in a moment from heaven, in the stead of the substance of the bread and wine, the outward form of bread and wine, to wit, the size, colour, smell and taste nevertheless remaining. After which essential change the signs of the supper are no longer bread and wine, but the very body and blood of Christ; yea, that every distinct crumb and drop is the whole Christ, as he was born of Mary, and as he was humbled and exalted, and that he is eaten and drunk in this manner. We will allow that the bread and wine undergo a certain change, inasmuch as they are set apart by the word of blessing from a com mon to a sacramental use, and thus have a special relation to the body and blood of Christ. We also acknowledge most readily, that Christ is present in the supper, according to the nature of the sacrament, in a three fold manner, (a) sacramentally, signifying and sealing his suffering and death. (b) According to his Godhead, which is present every where, and especially with this institution. (c) He is also actively present in the supper by his holy Spirit, causing us to eat his body, and drink his blood sacramentally and spiritually; but we deny without scruple, that Christ is bodily present in the sacrament, that the bread and wine are changed into his body and blood, and that we eat and drink him in a bodily manner. II. We do not reject this opinion from levity, but on account of weighty reasons; for, 1. The Lord Jesus hath a real body; for he was made like his brethren in all things," as Paul saith, Heb. ii. 17; therefore he cannot be present in many places, much less in every place at the same time this hath been shown more fully on the eighteenth Lord's day. How is it then possible that he should be present according to the body wherever the supper is received; that the bread and wine should be changed into his body and blood; and that every individual should eat and drink of them? or do men know not only how to change bread and wine into a whole Christ, but also how to change them into many Christs? to what doth all this tend? 2. It hath been shown before, that to a sacrament pertains a sign and a thing signified; but by transubstantiation, the signs, bread and wine, are changed into the things signified, the body and blood of Christ, and so the signs, yea, the whole nature of the sacrament is abolished. 3. We do not find such a substantial change in any of the other sacraments. Circumcision, the sacrament, sign, and seal of God's Covenant was never changed into God's covenant; the paschal lamb was not changed into the Lord's passover, nor the angel who passed through Egypt, into Christ. All the ceremonies of the Old Testa ment were sacramental signs and seals of Christ, and of his benefits: but not one of them was ever changed into Christ. It cannot be said in reply to this, that those signs were not changed into the thing signified, because they were bare types of the sacraments of the NewTestament; for this is not true, as we have proved upon the twentyfiftn Lord's day. But besides this, baptism is a sacrament of the New-Testament; but the water in baptism is not changed into the blood of Christ, neither is it the washing away of sin itself, as hath appeared before: what reason then can there be, why the signs of the Lord's supper should be changed into the things signified, more than the signs of the other sacraments? 4. This substantial change militates also against the words of the institution and of the blessing, "this is my body," by the low mumbling of which words in Latin, they will make the body and blood of Christ of the bread and wine; for the word "this" relates to the bread, which Christ took, broke, and distributed with the cup, but not to the body and blood of Christ; the verb substantive “is,” doth not change these signs, but simply showeth that the bread and wine are sacramental. The following words, "my body," do not effect any change, yea, they do not make a full sense by themselves, but only as they are connected with the verb substantive "is," which doth not change. The Papists will have that the bread is not chan. ged by the word hoc, "this," nor by the word est, "is," nor by the word corpus, "body," nor by the word meum, "my ;" but only by um, the last syllable of meum, "my." But what is there in this syllable um, that it can do more than Christ, or the apostles did? for they never made flesh and blood, much less a whole Christ, and many Christs of bread and wine. What magician ever performed any uncommon feat by mumbling two letters? The Egyptian magicians knew how to change rods into serpents, and water into blood by their enchantments, but this was a mere childish trick in compar ison with the magic art of the Papists, who are able to do so much greater, yea, unheard of wonders, with two letters. Who will believe this? surely none who will not renounce his humanity. The apostle Paul calls the signs bread and the cup, even after they have been blessed, 1 Cor. xi. 26-28. It is true, things that have been changed retain their names, which they had before; the serpents of Moses and of the Magicians are called rods after they were become serpents, Exod. vii. 2, and Simon is called a leper after he was cleansed, Matt. xxvi. 6. But there were then certain and indis putable evidences, that those things were truly changed: every per-" son could see that those rods were no longer rods, but serpents, and that Simon was no longer a leper, since they were all changed, not only with respect to their nature, but also with respect to their accidents: let the Papists show us this also of the bread and wine, and that it is no longer bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ, yea, the whole Christ, as he was humbled and exalted, and we will then see, that the signs are called bread and wine according to their former, and not according to their present nature. 5. The end for which the supper was instituted was ❝ the remembrance" of Christ. Now it is evident, that we neither institute, nor give any thing in remembrance of aught that is present; the passover was a memorial, to cause Israel and his posterity to remember the benefit which had been shown to them formerly, that their firstborn were spared, and not slain in Egypt, Exod. xii. 14, 24-27. Therefore Christ cannot be present, according to his body, in the supper, neither can the bread and wine be the real body and blood of Christ for otherwise the supper would not be a memorial of him. 6. This Popish pretence militates against many articles of the faith, which all Christians, yea, which the Papists themselves receive for every one confesseth that God alone is the Almighty Maker; but they subvert this by their doctrine of transubstantiation; the priest, since he makes Christ of bread and wine, and that as often as he pleases, is therefore above the Almighty Maker, who cannot make a God, any more than he can deny himself: but the priest can say, "He who created me without me, is created by me," We believe in Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary; who suffered," &c. But how can men, who pretend to believe the same things with us, say that the Christ who is under the forms of 'bread and wine, is the only begotten Son of the Father, conceived by the Holy Ghost, and born of Mary? He is surely made of bread. Did the breaden God of the Papists suffer? did he die, was he buried, and did he descend into hell? did he rise again and ascend into heaven, and sit at the right hand of God? doth he come down out heaven? and is there no Christ then in heaven? and is all this done at the beck of the masspriest? and that a thousand times? How doth this agree with the catholic creed? who dares, who can contrive and utter such fantastical things? Away with the creed of every Christian, if the Papists believe rightly here. 7. We must deny our senses, if we shall believe that bread and wine are the flesh and blood of Christ; for this militates against nearly all the senses of every man at all times; all men do at all times see bread and wine in the supper, they smell, taste, and feel them, and must say without any scruple, that such a small fragment, or round wafer hath neither the bulk, nor the form, nor the members of a man, as Christ was. How then can the flesh and blood of a whole Christ be there? Could those priests delude our senses, and those of every other man, as they pretend that they can change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, they would then gain much of us: but they fall short here, and therefore they seek to put us off with words, saying that the bodily senses cannot judge of spiritual mysteries. We say this also of mysteries, which are wholly spiritual; but the mystery of the Lord's supper is partly bodily, and the dispute relates only to that part of it which is bodily they say that there is no bread nor wine in the supper, but only Christ, his body and blood; this we deny. What now is more proper than that we should judge of that which is bodily by our bodily senses? Did not Christ appeal to the trial of the outward senses, when the apostles doubted whether he were risen, and might not be a Spirit? Luke xxiv. 36-41. But say these men, the outward senses can be deceived. True, when the senses are disordered, the object far off, and when some other body is between our senses and the object; but who will say that the senses fail, when they are not disordered, when the object is near at hand, and when there is no let between the object and the senses? And when the senses of all men judge in the same manner at all times, must we then yet pluck out our eyes, stop our nostrils, deny our taste, and cut off our hands? must I be wilfully and knowingly a fool, that I may believe that horrendum mysterium, “ that horrible mystery ?" 8. This transubstantiation militates against the nature of every change; for when any thing is changed, then (a) that which is changed, is changed not only in its nature, but also in its forms, qualities and accidents, which are changed as well as its nature: when the rods were changed into serpents, the water into blood, the dust into lice, they had not then any longer the forms, qualities, and accidents of rods, water, and dust, but of serpents, blood, and lice: but these men will have that bread and wine are flesh and blood, yea, the whole Christ: when notwithstanding the colour, smell, taste, and all the outward forms of bread and wine remain. (b) When one thing is changed into another, a new thing is then produced and created by a miracle; for instance, when the water was changed into wine, John ii. 9, 10, 11, the wine, which did not exist before, was then newly created by a miracle; but when bread and wine are changed into Christ, is he then newly created? he was not then be |