but to commemorate the Sacrifice of Chrift; which though we are required to do, and do accordingly, more or less explicitly, in all our Acts of Devotion, yet we are not required to do it by any vifible Reprefentation, but that of the Lord's Supper: of which therefore our Catechifm teaches, in the fecond Anfwer, that the outward Part, or Sign, is Bread and Wine, which the Lord hath commanded to be received. And indeed he hath fo clearly commanded both to be received, that no reasonable Defence in the least can be made, either for the Sect ufually called Quakers, who omit this Sacrament entirely; or for the Church of Rome, who deprive the Laity of one half of it, the Cup; and forbid all but the Prieft to do, what Chrift hath appointed all without Exception to do. They plead indeed, that all, whom Christ appointed to receive the Cup, that is, the Apoftles, were Priefts. But their Church forbids the Priests themselves to receive it, excepting those who perform the Service: which the Apoftles did not perform, but their Mafter. And befides, if the Appointment of receiving the Cup belongs only to Priefts, that of receiving the Bread too must relate only to Priefts: for our Saviour hath more exprefsly directed all to drink of the one, than to eat of the other. But they own, that his Appointment obliges the Laity to receive the Bread and therefore it obliges them to receive the Cup alfo: which that they did accordingly, 1 Cor. xi. makes as plain as Words can make any Thing: nor was it refused them for 1200 Years after. They plead farther, that adminiftring the holy Sacrament is called in Scripture breaking of Bread, without mentioning the Cup at all. And we allow it. But when common Feafts are expreffed in Scripture by the fingle Phrase of eating Bread, furely this doth not prove that the Guests drank Nothing: and if, in this religious Feaft, the like Phrafe could prove, that the Laity did not partake of the Cup, it will prove equally, that the Priests did not partake of it either. They plead in the laft Place, that by receiving the Bread,

which

which is the Body of Chrift, we receive in Effect the Cup, which is the Blood, at the fame Time: for the Blood is contained in the Body. But here, befides that our Saviour, who was furely the beft Judge, appointed both, they quite forget, that this Sacrament is a Memorial of his Blood being fhed out of his Body: of which, without the Cup, there can be no Commemoration: or, if there could, the Cup would be as needlefs for the Clergy as for the Laity.

The outward Signs therefore, which Chrift hath commanded to be received, equally received, by all Chriftians, are Bread and Wine. Of these the Jews had been accuftomed to partake, in a ferious and devout Manner, at all their Feafts, after a folemn Bleffing, or Thanksgiving to God, made over them, for his Goodnefs to Men. But efpecially at the Feaft of the Paffover, which our Saviour was celebrating with his Difciples, when he inftituted this holy Sacrament; at that Feaft, in the abovementioned Thanksgiving, they commemorated more at large the Mercies of their God, dwelling chiefly however on their Deliverance from the Bondage of Egypt. Now this having many Particulars refembling that infinitely more important Redemption of all Mankind from Sin and Ruin, which our Saviour was then about to accomplish; He very naturally directed his Difciples, that their ancient Cuftom should for the future be applied to this greatest of divine Bleffings, and become the Memorial of Chrift. their Paffover, facrificed for them as indeed the Bread broken aptly enough reprefented his Body; and the Wine poured forth expreffively figured out his Blood, fhed for our Salvation. Thefe therefore, "as the third Answer of our Catechifm very juftly teaches, are the inward Part of this Sacrament, or the Thing fignified.

But the Church of Rome, inftead of being content with faying, that the Bread and Wine are Signs of the Body and Blood of Chrift, infift on it, that they are turned into the very Subftance of his Body and Blood:

• 1 Cor. v.. 7•

which imagined Change they therefore call Tranfubftantiation. Now were this true, there would be no outward Sign left: for they fay, it is converted into the Thing fignified: and by Confequence there would be no Sacrament left: for a Sacrament is an outward Sign of an inward Grace.

Befides, if our Senfes can in any Cafe inform us what any Thing is, they inform us, that the Bread and Wine continue Bread and Wine. And if we cannot trust our Senfes, when we have full Opportunity of using them all; how did the Apoftles know that our Saviour taught them, and performed Miracles; or how do we know any one Thing around us? But this Doctrine is equally contrary to all Reason too. To believe that our Saviour took his own Body, literally fpeaking, in his own Hands, and gave the Whole of that one Body to every one of his Apoftles, and that each of them fwallowed Him down their Throats, though all the while He continued fitting at the Table before their Eyes: to believe, that the very fame one individual Body, which is now in Heaven, is also in many thousands of different Places on Earth; in fome, ftanding ftill upon the Altar; in others, carrying along the Streets; and fo in Motion, and not in Motion, at the fame Time: to believe, that the fame Body can come from a great Distance, and meet itself, as the facramental Bread often doth in their Proceffions, and then pass by itfelf, and go away from itfelf to the fame Distance again; is to believe the moft abfolute Impoffibilities and Contradictions. If fuch Things can be true, Nothing can be falfe: and if fuch Things cannot. be true, the Church that teaches them cannot be infallible, whatever Arts of puzzling Sophiftry they may use to prove either that or any of their Doctrines. For no Reasonings are ever to be minded against plain Common-Senfe.

They must not fay, this Doctrine is a Mystery. For there is no Myftery, no Obscurity in it: but it is as plainly feen to be an Error, as any Thing elfe is feen to be a Truth. And the more fo, because it relates, not

to

to an infinite Nature, as God; but entirely to what is finite, a Bit of Bread and a human Body. They must not plead, that God can do all Things. For that means only that He can do all Things that can be done: not that He can do what cannot be done; make a Thing be this and not be this, be here and elsewhere, at the fame Time: which is doing and undoing at once, and so in Reality doing Nothing. They must not alledge Scripture for Abfurdities, that would fooner prove Scripture falfe, than Scripture can prove them true. But it no

where teaches them.

We own that our Saviour fays, This is my Body, which is broken; and, This is my Blood, which is fhed. But He could not mean literally. For as yet his Body was not broken, nor his Blood fhed: nor is either of them in that Condition now. And therefore the Bread and Wine neither could then, nor can now, be turned into them, as fuch. Befides, our Saviour faid at the fame Time, This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood f. Was the Substance of the Cup then changed into the New Testament? And if not, why are we to think the Subftance of the Bread and Wine changed into his Body and Blood? The Apoftle fays, the Rock, that fupplied the Ifraelites with Water in the Wilderness, was Chrift: that is, reprefented Him. Every Body fays, fuch a Picture is fuch a Perfon, meaning the Reprefentation of him. Why then may not our Saviour's Words mean fo too?

The Romanifts object, that though what reprefents a Thing naturally, or by Virtue of a preceding Inftitution, may be called by its Name, yet fuch a Figure as this, in the Words of a new Inftitution, would not be intelligible. But the Reprefentation here is natural enough: and though the Inftitution was new, figurative Speech was old. And the Apostles would certainly rather interpret their Master's Words by a very ufual Figure,

dr Cor. xi. 24. • 1 Cor. x. 4.

e Matth. xxvi. 28. f Luke xxii. 20. 1 Cor. xi. 25. Preuves de la Religion, vol. IV. p. 166.

than put the abfurdeft Sense upon them that could be. They object further, that if He had not meant literally, He would have faid, not, This, but This Bread, is my Body. But we may better argue, that if He had meant literally, He would have faid, in the ftrongeft. Terms, that he did. For there was great Need, furely, of fuch a Declaration. But we acknowledge, that the Bread and Wine are more than a Representation of his Body and Blood: they are the Means, by which the Benefits, arifing from them, are conveyed to us; and have thence a further Title to be called by their Name. For fo the Inftrument, by which a Prince forgives an Offender, is called his Pardon, becaufe it conveys his Pardon; the Delivery of a Writing is called giving Poffeffion of an Eftate; and a Security for a Sum of Money, is called the Sum itself; and is fo in Virtue and Effect, though it is not in Strictnefs of Speech, and Reality of Substance.. Again: our Saviour, we own, fays in St. John, that Hẻ is the Bread of Life; that his Flesh is Meat indeed, and his Blood is Drink indeed: that whofo eateth the one and drinketh the other, bath eternal Life; and that, without doing it, we have no Life in us. But this, if understood literally, would prove, not that the Bread in the Sacrament was turned into his Flesh, but that his Flesh was turned into Bread. And therefore it is not to be understood literally, as indeed He himself gives Notice: The Flefb profiteth Nothing: the Words which I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are Life: It is not the grofs and literal, but the figurative and fpiritual, eating and drinking; the partaking by a lively Faith of an Union with me, and being inwardly nourished by the Fruits of my offering up my Flefh and Blood for you, that alone can be of Benefit to the Soul.

And as this is plainly the Senfe, in which He fays, that his Flesh is Meat indeed, and his Blood is Drink indeed: fo it is the Senfe, in which the latter Part of the third