Question 96

Are not Bread and Wine too small and common things to represent the body and blood of Christ?

Though a bit of Bread, and a draught of Wine, be things of small value in themselves, yet they are great in respect of their use and end. A penny-worth of Wax is a small thing in its self; but being applyed to the Label of a Deed, may be advanced to the worth of thousands of pounds, as it receives the seal to a great inheritance.

Is not the bread in the Sacrament turned into the very body of Christ it self by Transubstantiation?

No, it is not; but the Elements retain still their own proper Nature of Bread and Wine after the words of Consecration, and are so called,^a For as often as ye eat this bread, &c.^b But I say unto you, I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Fathers kingdom.

What is the first argument by which Protestants confute the Popish Doctrine of Transubstantiation?

The first Argument against it, is taken from the end of the Sacrament, which is to bring Christs Body and Blood to our remembrance,^c —This do in remembrance of me. Now signs for remembrance are of things absent, not present.

What’s the second Argument?

Because the language in which our Saviour spake, had no other property of expression, there being no other word for signifie but is, in stead thereof, as is manifest in both Testaments,^d And the seven ill-favoured kine that came up after them, are seven years of famine.^e —The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches; and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

What’s the third Argument against Transubstantiation?

The manifold gross absurdities that naturally and necessarily follow on this Doctrine, shew the falseness of it, and that it is justly rejected and abhorred by all sound Christians.

What’s the first absurdity that follows it?

This Doctrine allows that to a silly Priest, which is not to be allowed to all the Angels in Heaven. It allows him power to make his Maker, and eat his God. And in justifying this by the Omnipotency of God, they say no more than what a Turk may say to justifie the most ridiculous fooleries of the Alcoran.

What’s the second absurdity of Transubstantiation?

The second absurdity is this, that it denies the truth of the testimony given by the senses of all men, that it is real Bread and real Wine after Consecration, and not Flesh and Blood. And if the testimony of sense be not certain, then the being of God cannot be proved by the things that are made, contrary to^f For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and godhead, &c. Nor the truth of Christs Resurrection, by seeing and feeling, contrary to^g Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I my self; handle me and see, &c.

What’s the third absurdity of Transubstantiation?

The third absurdity is this, that in affirming the accidents of Bread and Wine to remain, and their substance to vanish, they affirm that there is length, breadth, thickness, moisture and sweetness, and yet nothing long, broad, thick, moist or sweet, which is a perfect contradiction.

What’s the fourth absurdity of Transubstantiation?

It implies that the entire living body of Christ sate at the Table, and at the same time was dead, and in the Disciples mouths and stomachs in the first Sacrament; and that in all after Sacraments it is wholly in Heaven, and wholly in as many thousand places in the World, as there are Sacraments administred.

What doth the breaking of this bread, and pouring out of wine in the Sacrament signifie?

It signifies the violent painful death, and bitter sufferings of Christ for us,^h For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lords death till he come.

What doth the giving and taking of the Sacramental bread and wine signifie?

These actions signifie Gods exhibiting, and the Believers applying of Christ and all his benefits to their Souls.

Who are fit subjects to receive the Lords Supper?

None that are grosly ignorant, scandalous, or unbelievers in their Natural state, for such cannot examine themselves as the Word requires,ⁱ But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. But do eat and drink Judgment to themselves,^j For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body.

Are morally honest and sober persons qualified for this Sacrament?

No; Civility and Morality do not qualifie persons, they are not the Wedding-garment; but regenerating Grace and Faith doth in the smallest measure,^k And he saith unto him, friend, how camest thou in hither, not having a wedding garment, &c.^l The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.