תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

them. Nay 'tis evident, that the Difciples did apprehend his true meaning, from verfe 68. where St. Peter faies, thou haft the Words of eternal life. For had he ftill thought that our Lord fpake of eating his flesh and drinking his bloud in a Literal Senfe, he wou'd have anfwer'd thus, Lord, tho' it is a bard faying, and we cannot conceive how Men can eat and drink thy real flesh and bloud; yet because thou haft faid it, we believe it. Whereas St. Peter anfwers in a different manner, faying, Lord, to whom Shall we go? Thou haft the Words of eternal life. That is, We are refolv'd to ftay with thee the true Bread of Life, for thou haft the Words or Doctrin of eter nal life. njano vow didi 30 mO

i

2. Altho our Savior did not alwaies explain his Parables to the obftinate and harden'd Jews, yet fometimes he was pleas'd to do it. And tho our Lord did fuffer thefe Men to continue in their miftake for fome time; yet it do's not appear from the Text, that they were gone, when he gave the true explication of his Words And therefore tis poffible, that he might unfold thofe Myfteri ous Speeches to them; as well as to his Difciples. However, whether he did unriddle thofe hard Sayings to them or no; the argument is fairly folved upon either fuppofition.3

Thirdly, "Tis faid, that the Flesh of Christ, in a Literal Senfe, was to be given on the Crofs for the Life of the World, and therefore the fame Flesh is to be eaten by us in a Literal Senfe at the Cele bration of the Holy Sacrament. But I answer, that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was in ftituted in Commemoration of his Death and Paffion; because our Savior, faid, Do this in remembrance of me, Luke 22. 19. Wherefore it is not neceffary for us to eat his Flesh in a Literal Senfe;

but

but 'tis fufficient if we eat thofe Elements which reprefent and fignify his Body and Bloud. For if we do this, we fhall be made partakers of those benefits, which he by his fufferings purchas'd for

[ocr errors]

Wellthen; fince the evidence of our Senfe do's fo plainly prove that the Subftances of the Bread and Wine, do ftill remain, even after the Confecration which is utterly inconfiftent with explaining the Sixth of St. John in a Literal Sense; and fince that very Chapter (if it be understood of that Mystery) affords us feveral Objections against the Literal interpretation of it; and fince the Literal intèrpretation of that Chapter (if underftood of the Sacrament of the Eucharift) do's fuppofe all Chriftians to be guilty of the greateft barbarity imaginable, and that by the Command of God; and fince those Arguments which our Adverfaries produce to fhew the reafonablenefs or neceffity of a Literal Expofition of it, are fhewn to be of no forcé; fince, I fay, thefe things are fo; certainly we ought, if we can, to explain it otherwife. Now fince we ought, if we can, to explain it otherwife; and fince the Chapter it felf is not only fairly capable of it, but do's alfo require it; certainly I may justly conclude, as I have already afferted, that this Chapter (tho' underftood of the Eucharift) ought not to be interpreted in a Literal Senfe,

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

4

5 told + CHA P.. VII.

18

Lar

That, altho' the Sixth Chapter of St. John's Gospel. did relate to the Lord's Supper, and were to be understood in a Literal Senfe; yet it do's not prove the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation, but directly contrary.

Hirdly, I fhall now make it appear, that altho'.

Tthis Chapter did relate to the Lord's Supper,

and were to be understood in a Literal Senfe, yet. it do's not prove the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation, but directly contrary, And this I fhall do in the following manner. A zd and

t

The Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation: fuppofes, that the whole fubftance of the Bread is turn'd into the Body, and the whole fubftance of the Wine is turn'd into the Bloud of Chrift. Now I fhall prove, that if this Chapter be understood of the Eucharift in a Literal Senfe, then the whole Subftances of the Bread and Wine are not turn'd into the Body and Bloud of Chrift but the whole Subftances of the Body and Bloud of Chrift are turn'd into Bread and Wine; which is directly contrary to the Doctrin of Tranfubftantia

tion.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

11.

Now that the whole Subftances of the Body and Bloud of Christ muft (according to this interpretation) be turn'd into Bread and Wine, is manifeft even from the 51 verfe, which is the main Pillar of the Literal expofition. For here our Savior faies, I am the living bread, which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread be Shall

Shall live for ever and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the World Now if these words are literally to be understood of the Lord's Supper, and there muft of neceffity be a change of one whole fubftance into another; then the whole fubftance of Chrift's Flesh muft be turn'd into Bread, and not the whole fubftance of the Bread into Chrift's Flesh.

This is plainly the fenfe of the Text, if there be any fubftantial change at all; because the thing there fpoken of is to be chang'd into fomething elfe. Now 'tis plain (according to the Literal interpretation) that our Savior there fpeaks of his real Flesh, which he then carried about with him; and 'tis plain that there was no Sacramental Bread that cou'd be chang'd, because the Lord's Supper was not inftituted till a long time after: and therefore, if that which was then spoken of muft be chang'd,and made Bread; then the whole fubftance of Christ's Flesh must be turn'd into Bread.

[ocr errors]

Now if the whole fubftance of Christ's Flesh be turn'd into Bread, then by the fame reason the whole fubftance of Chrift's Bloud must be turn'd into Wine; because they are both spoken of after the fame manner. And confequently, fince this Chapter (according to that Literal interpretation) do's prove fuch a change of the whole substances of the Body and Bloud of Christ into Bread and Wine, it cannot prove, but must of neceffity deftroy, the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation, which fuppofes a Change of Bread and Wine into Chrift's Body and Bloud.

[ocr errors]

And now I believe our Adverfaries have no great reafon to boat of this Argument from the Sixth of St. John's Gospel, which upon their own principles overthrows their own Doctrin.

I 4

CHAP.

CHAP. VIII.

That the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation cannot be prov'd from the Words of the Inftitution of the "Lord's Supper.

[ocr errors]

ECONDLY; the fecond pretended Scriptureproof of the Doctrin of Tranfubftantiation is drawn from the Words of the Inftitution, This is my Body, and This is my Bloud. By thefe Words our Adverfaries think our Savior meant, This body is my natural body, and This bloud is my natural bloud: and then they argue, that if the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ are in the Elements, then the whole fubftance of the Elements is chang'd into Chrift's Natural Body and Bloud; which change they call Tranfubftantiation. Now in anfwer to this I fhall fhew, that by the Words This is my body, and This is my bloud, we are to understand, This bread fignifies or reprefents my body, and This wine fignifies or reprefents my bloud. And this will ap pear, if we confider Four things. That the words are fairly capable of such a fenfe. 2. That the Scriptures; and, 3. That Right Reason require fuch a fenfe. 4. That the Apostles understood our Savior in this fenfe,

[ocr errors]

Firft then I fay, the words are fairly capable of fuch a fenfe. 'Tis a common thing in Scripture to give a thing the Name of what is fignify'd by it. Thus Jofeph tells Pharaob, that the feven good kine are feven years, and that the feven good ears of corn are feven years, Gen. 41. 26. that is, they fignify feven years. Thus alfo the Rock which 11 follow'd the Ifraelites, 1 Cor. 10, 4. was (or fignify'd)

1

[ocr errors]
« הקודםהמשך »