said This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed or more properly poured out for you and for many for the remission of Sins Did not our Lord plainly read in the minds of his Disciples that by the Cup they would understand that which was contained in the Cup If any one should advise the Author when he is thirsty to drink off his Glass would he be so inconsiderate as to swallow it together with the Wine Nay further so unhappy is the Author as to urge this instance of holy Scripture in the first place which alone is enough fully to clear the Point against him Neither the Apostles nor any men else could be so ignorant of the manner of human discourse as not to apprehend that our Saviour by the Cup meant what was contained in it which was most certainly Christs Blood for otherwise it could not be said of it as it is Luke 22. 20. that it was then poured out for the Apostles and for many for the remission of Sins it is said is poured out in the Present Tense not shall be poured out in the Future therefore here can be meant only the Blood of Christ as now poured out in the Sacrament for them not as it was afterwards shed from his Crucified Body upon the ground The Original runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where in construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Wine as a Figure only of Christs Blood or signifying its virtue could not be poured out for the remission of Sins You might with more congruity of Speech affirm of an Image of the Blessed Virgin This is that which conceived the Son of God because in this there is some plain resemblance to the Prototype Beza a great Critic in his way though an Adversary to the Catholic Doctrin in this Point not being able to deny this Proof would rather have the Scripture to be thought false although that be the whole Foundation of their Faith than change his Opinion and saith that it is a Solecism and should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He concludes that the holy Spirit or St. Luke that divinely inspired Pen-man the most eloquent of all the Evangelists could be sooner mistaken though in a matter of so great moment than himself or else he would have the Scripture to be falsified and corrupt in this place and not himself For he acknowledges that all the ancient Manuscripts which he had seen and even his own which was of great Authority and of venerable Antiquity venerandae Antiquitatis together with the Syriac Version to which he gives this Elogy that it was deservedly accounted to be of greatest authority maximae meritò authoritatis did conspire together to refer the effusion of Blood to the Cup. The Author therefore and all that separate from the Catholic Church in this Point must either at last be forced to confess here as Beza doth concerning those words of our Lord This is my Body That this saying thus exprest cannot be retained but it must prove Transubstantiation after the manner of the Papists or else that the Holy Scripture the Foundation of Christian Faith is made invalid So that it is plain from what hath been said that the Cup is here put for what is contained in the Cup and that the words so taken do signifie and operate a substantial Change not of the Cup but of the Wine in the Cup and that not into the New Testament or Covenant but into the Blood of Christ in which this New Covenant or Testament is made sealed and confirmed Besides that his Blood is said here then to be poured out and his Body then to be broken and given for us which they could not be unless they were then really in the Sacrament because the Passion wherein his Body was peirced only not broken as in the Sacrament and his Blood was shed from his Crucified Body upon the ground not only poured forth from one Vessel to another and drunk as in the Sacrament followed the Institution and first Celebration of this Sacrament DISCOURSE But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controversie Bellarmin Suarez and Vasques do acknowledg Scotus the great Schoolman to have said that this Doctrin cannot be evidently proved from Scripture And Bellarmin grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasques acknowledg Durandus to have said as much Ocham another famous Schoolman says expresly that the Doctrin which holds the Substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambrey says plainly That the Doctrin of the Substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more easie and free from Absurdity more rational and no ways repugnant to the Authority of Scripture nay more that for the other Doctrin viz. of Transubstantiation there is no evidence in Scripture Gabriel Biel another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church freely declares that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the Scriptures a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation into some other Revelation besides Scripture which he supposeth the Church had about it Cardinal Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ that we have this from the Authority of the Church Nay he goes farther That there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ this is my Body in a proper and not a metaphorical Sense but the Church having understood them in a proper Sense they are to be so explained Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. Cardinal Contarenus and Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Writers that Church ever had reckon this Doctrin among those which are not so expresly found in Scripture I will add but one more of great authority in the Church and a reputed Martyr Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true Presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in our Mass can be proved So that we need not much contend that this Doctrin hath no certain foundation in Scripture when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves ANSWER The Author hath had very little Success yet in that which he calls a Discourse against Transubstantiation therefore because he would now do some Execution he is forc't to come down to his Adversaries
hearing will discover to be Fallacies That which the Servants at the Marriage of Cana in Galiee took from the Fountain was Water that which they poured into the Water-pots was the same that they took from the Fountain that which the Guests drank was the same that the Servants put into the Water-pots But that which the Servants took from the Fountain which they poured into the Pots was Water therefore it was Water which the Guests drank Or your Argument may in a shorter way be turn'd against you thus That which Christ took into his hands he gave But that which he took into his hands was not Sacramental Bread nor virtually Christs Body therefore that which he gave was not Sacramental Bread nor virtually Christs Body And now repeating your Argument truly tho' without all your heap of words I shall expose it's Fallacy plainly That you say which Christ took c. he gave but he took Bread therefore he gave Bread. I distinguish the Major That he took he gave unchanged or in the same manner he took it I deny What he took he gave changed and made his Body I grant and so agreeing he took Bread I deny your Consequence Look into your Logic again observe it well and you will find that to make a Proposition contradictory to ours viz. That that which Christ gave was his Real Body you must observe the Rules of your Master Aristotle so as to speak de eodem modo eodem tempore which you have not here known how to do Yet you for all this would be esteemed the Great Champion for the Protestant cause and boast that this your matter and Argument is so Demonstrative that you cannot but stand amazed that Men who pretend to reason can refuse it This pretended Demonstration might be much more exposed had I leasure whilst I am discoursing upon so serious a point to insist upon trifles Neither would the Remarks which he afterwards makes help him in the least For tho' our Saviour did say according to St. Luke and St. Paul This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood yet this passage doth not fully determin that by This is my Body is meant This Bread is my Body For the word This in the Proposition This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood being joyned with the word Cup by a known Figure to signifie in a General way what is contained in the Cup only makes the Proposition to Signifie That which is contained in the Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which in the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Mark is exprest by these words This is my Blood of the New Testament so that the word This still altho' joyned to Cup hath no other kind of signification than it hath in the Words This is my Body as I have before explained them Also if it had the Sense which the Author of the Expostulatory Letter would give it then the meaning would be This Wine is the New Testament in my Blood or as according to St. Matthew and St. Mark This Wine is my Blood of the New Testament which words in the Sense that our Adversaries put upon them would in those circumstances wherein they were spoken have been contrary to the Rules of Human Discourse suitably to what is shew'd in the ensuing Answer concerning the Words This is my Body taken in their Sense The Adversary indeed in This Expostulatory Letter insolently Triumphs because he hath found out some mistakes in Translating c. But his Answer to the Fathers Authorities which have been so often truly cited as an undeniable Evidence against his Party will easily be shew'd to be unsatisfactory when we come to their proper place and he so slightly attacks as you have seen our main Evidence the proper Sense of our Lords words as hardly to bring the face of an Argument against it So we Read that a Humorsom Emperor when he came to invade Great Britain only gather'd Cockles and yet for this he demanded Triumph in a Letter to his Senators thinking his Shell-spoils worthy Offerings for the Capitol We have one Request now to make to those who oppose the Doctrin of Transubstantiation That because it is necessary for an Answerer to know distinctly what the Persons mean to whom he is to make an Answer they would deal sincerely with us and since we have told them in what Sense every word in the Proposition This is my Body is taken by us and how the Catholic Church doth necessarily infer Transubstantiation from them they would now deal as candidly with us and tell us as plainly as we have done how they understand each of these words I have reason to intreat this favor of them because altho' they seem sometimes to maintain only a Vertual not Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament which Opinion of theirs I have chiefly opposed in the Ensuing Answer yet at othertimes they and even the Discourser himself readily acknowledge a Great Supernatural change to be made by the Divine Benediction and the Author of the Expostulatory Letter hath a Reserv'd Distinction of Christs Natural and Spiritual Flesh and Blood seeming to allow that Christ hath a Spiritual Body in the Sacrament We know not but that he intends the same which the Learned Author of a Brief Discourse of the Real Presence hath lately given us of two Bodies of Christ the one Natural in which he was Crucified the other Spiritual belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life or Spirit which goes along with the Divine Body of this Life or Spirit of Christ and consequently is rightly call'd his Body For this he grounds himself upon that earnest lofty and sublime Discourse as he calls it of our Saviour in the 6th Chapter of St. John confessing ingenuously that it seems to him incredible that under so lofty mysterious a style and earnest asseverations of what he affirms tho' to the scandal both of the Jews and his own Disciples there should not be couched some most weighty and profound Truth concerning some Real Flesh and Blood of his touching which this vehement and sublime Discourse is framed pa. 40. And than again pa. 42. and 43. It is plain says he that our Saviours Discourse in that Chapter has for its Object or Subject not the manner or way of receiving his Body and Blood as if meant of that very Body and Blood on the Cross to be receiv'd in a Spiritual manner which Interpreters several of them meaning of the Reformers drive at and which he thinks would be a very dilute and frigid Sense of such high and fervid asseverations of our Saviour but the Object of his Discourse says he is his very Flesh and Blood it self to be taken as the Fish and Loaves were wherewith he lately fed them or it is himself in reference to his Flesh and Blood which belongs to him as he is the
deluded Souls it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a Doctrin and to lay open the monstrous Absurdity of it ANSWER And yet notwithstanding all this there is a Sect of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as confidently to deny this revealed truth and to impose this strange Negative Article of Faith of theirs That in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after Consecration by any person whatsoever under no less penalties than the temporal loss of their Estates and Livelihoods the loss of their Lives the formal renouncing of the Catholic Faith and Religion which is dearer to them than their Lives and consequently Eternal damnation Therefore to undeceive which we hope is possible these deluded Souls it will be necessary to shew the real grounds upon which Transubstantiation is built that so the monstrous absurdity of the contrary Doctrin may be made to appear DISCOURSE And in the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin II. I shall produce our Objections against it And if I can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it and that there are invincible Objections against it then every man is not only in reason excused from believing this Doctrin but hath great cause to believe the contrary FIRST I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin Which must be one or more of these five Either 1st The Authority of Scripture Or 2ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviour's words This is my Body in this Sense Or 3ly The Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith. Or 4ly The absolute necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5ly To magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle 1st They pretend for this Doctrin the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour This is my Body Now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence I shall endeavour to make good these two things 1. That there is no necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation 2. That there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise ANSWER In the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the Catholic Church for this Doctrin II. I shall weigh the Objections which the Author makes against it And if I can shew that there is a real ground for it and that the Objections against it are weak and inconsiderable then every man is not only in reason obliged to believe it but hath great cause to reject the contrary First I shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the Catholic Church for this Doctrin Which are at least these five 1st The Authority of Scripture 2ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviours words This is my Body in this Sense Or 3ly The Authority of the Church in every Age to declare propose and exhibit when by misinterpretation of Heretics they are forc'd to it a more explicit Sense of the Ancient Articles of our Faith. Or 4ly The infinite Mercy and condescension of God to operate such a change as this for the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5ly The just dignity of the Priest whom God is pleas'd to make use of as his Minister for the working so miraculous a change 1st The Catholic Church hath always grounded the Doctrin of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation upon the Authority of Divine Revelation in these words of our Saviour This is my Body Now to shew the validity of this Proof I shall endeavour to make good these two things I. That there is a necessity of understanding these words of our Saviour in the Sense of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation From whence it will necessarily follow II. That there is no reason at all for the understanding them otherwise DISCOURSE First That there is no necessity to understand those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation If there be any it must be from one of these two Reasons Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture which I think no man ever yet said or else because a Sacrament admits of no figures which would be very absurd for any man to say since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure And especially since it cannot be denied but that in the institution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally When he gave the Cup he said This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Where first the Cup is put for Wine contained in the Cup or else if the words by literally taken so as to signifie a substantial change it is not of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the Blood of Christ but into the New Testament or new Covenant in his Blood. Besides that his Blood is said then to be shed and his Body to be broken which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first celebration of this Sacrament ANSWER First That there is a necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the Sense of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation For these two Reasons 1. Because although there be many figurative expressions in Scripture which all men allow yet this in relation to the Case in hand is not such 2. Although a Sacrament admits of Figures which no man is so absurd as to deny since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward Sign and Figure Yet the Figure doth not lie where the Author pretends it doth The Rule which men ought to observe in their discourse in relation to Figures is this That a Figure should not be used which the Auditor doth not easily apprehend to be so To compare therefore a Figure which all the World can easily understand to be so with an expression which no man can Construe to be a Figure according to the Rules of human Discourse is very absurd Yet such is the Authors instance from Scripture From whence he alledgeth that when our Saviour gave the Cup he
Messias the Lamb of God that was to take away the sins of the World. Now the Bread and Wine not having been at all discovered to be such Signs of our Saviours Body and Blood to the Disciples nor consequently considered as so it was against the Rules of human discourse to say they were his Body and Blood if no more was meant than that they were Signs of them and as absurd as for Moses before the formal Institution of the Paschal Sacrifice recited at large in Exod. 12. to have said to the People upon Sacrificing a Lamb This is the Lords Passover Or This Passover is your Saviour For it was to be known and considered as a Passover Sacrifice and as a Type of the Messias before he could reasonably have affirmed thus of it 3. The Jewish Passover was a Type of this Sacrament and so it is generally acknowledged by the Fathers to be now that there should be a Sign of a Sign only a Type of that which it self was but a Type Instituted by Christ is very unreasonable to imagin especially since we do not now live under a Law of Shadows and Figures but of Verity and substance Since therefore the Paschal Lamb was really and in a proper Sense the Sacrifice of the Lords Passover according to that true Paschal Form in Holy Scripture because a true Paschal Sacrifice was offered by the Jews as well for a grateful acknowledgment of their past benefit as of one that was certainly to come since this Passover Sacrifice was really a Saviour or Salvation to the Jews as well as a Type of the Messias since the Lamb drest in the Paschal Supper was not only call'd but really was the Body of the Passover Sacrifice or Paschal Lamb according to the foremention'd expressions of Esdras and the Rabins which notwithstanding we can by no means allow to be Paschal Forms of constant usage since they so vary from one another much less of Divine Institution because no such are used in Holy Scripture since the Bread which the Jews Eat when they used that Phrase This is the Bread of Affliction was Real Bread and all that Eat this Bread as they ought to do were really afflicted when they seriously consider'd what their Fathers suffer'd in Egypt because they also for their own sins deserv'd to suffer as much this Bread also being the same which their Fathers did Eat viz. unleavened Bread Surely none can be so hard of belief as to imagin after serious consideration that there was less of truth and reality in our Lords words This is my Body in which as is not improbable he might imitate some of these Phrases than there was even in these expressions which were used under the Law of Types and Shadows And to shew the Analogy the more perfectly and not to represent it partially as our Adversaries do we are further to consider That as the Bread of Affliction which was yearly Eaten by the Jews at the time of the Paschal Solemnity was really Bread and of the same kind with that which their Fathers did Eat in Egypt and was also a Memorial of the first Bread of this kind which their Fathers did Eat As the Paschal Lamb that was yearly drest and really Eaten was the Real Body of the Passover Sacrifice thus yearly offer'd and was also to put the Jews in mind of the first deliverance wrought upon the first Paschal Offering so Christians when they renew the Sacrifice of Eucharist feed upon Christs Real Body which is the Antitype of the Paschal Lamb and at the same time Remember that first Oblation which Christ made of the same Body altho' in a different manner upon the Cross DISCOURSE And nothing is more common in all Languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign As the delivery of a Deed or Writing under hand and Seal is call'd a conveyance or making over of such an Estate and it is really so not the delivery of mere Wax and Parchment but the conveyance of a Real Estate as truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the very material Houses and Lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my Hands In like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the new Covenant of the Gospel between God and Man are given to the Signs and Seals of that Covenant By Baptism Christians are said to be made partakers of the Holy Ghost Heb. 6. 4. And by the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper we are said to Communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken and of his Blood which was shed for us that is of the real benefits of his Death and Passion And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ But still it is Bread and he still calls it so v. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread. The Church of Rome might if they pleased as well argue from hence that all Christians are substantially changed first into Bread and then into the natural Body of Christ by their participation of the Sacrament because they are said thereby to be one Bread and one Body And the same Apostle in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the Consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three verses together As often as ye Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup v. 26. Whosoever shall Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily v. 27. But let a Man examin himself and so let him Eat of this Bread and Drink of that Cup v. 28. And our Saviour himself when he had said this is my Blood of the New Testament immediately adds but I say unto you I will not henceforth Drink of this fruit of the Vine until I Drink it new with you in my Father's Kingdom that is not till after his Resurrection which was the first step of his Exaltation into the Kingdom given him by his Father when the Scripture tells us he did Eat and Drink with his Disciples But that which I observe from our Saviour's words is that after the Consecration of the Cup and the delivering of it to his Disciples to Drink of it he tells them that he would thenceforth Drink no more of the fruit of the Vine which he had now Drank with them till after his Resurrection From whence it is plain that it was the fruit of the Vine Real Wine which our Saviour Drank of and Communicated to his Disciples in the Sacrament ANSWER Here since neither the Authority of the Fathers nor the Word of God can afford the Authors cause any relief he at length flies to the Laws of Men
10. That Water which was by our Lord converted into Wine is still called Water Joh. 2. 9. The Angels are called Men Gen. 19. 8. because they appeared in the shape of Men according to the usual Language of Sense very many instances of which are to be found For our Saviour had fully instructed them before that the Bread which he would give them was his flesh Joh. 6. 51. The Apostle also saith again v. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread and that one Bread can signifie nothing here but the Body of Christ which indeed is but one altho' appearing in innumerable place of the World at the same and at several times because it is still animated by the same one Soul and Divinity of Christ which cannot be said of the Bread in the Sacrament if but mere Bread for then it would not be one Bread or Loaf but many and of several sorts being received at very many places at the same time And the true reason here why they are called one Bread and one Body or Society of Christians is because they are all partakers of that one Bread viz. the Body of Christ and therefore also all inspired with the same Spirit But in the Authors Sense it would be no reason but they should rather have been many Bodies because they did Eat of so many Breads So that we see he hath still the same success in bringing those Texts of Scripture to uphold his cause which are the most pregnant proofs against him He then proceeds to teach the Catholics how they might argue in his new way from a Sign already Instituted and known as so to an AEnigma or dark saying taken from things of a disparate and really different nature and of no acknowledg'd Resemblance that is from Chalk to Cheese but they beg his Pardon for that Well but the same Apostle in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the Consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three verses together as often as ye Eat THIS Bread and Drink THIS Cup v. 26. Whosoever shall Eat THIS Bread and Drink THIS Cup of the Lord unworthily v. 27. But let a Man Examin himself and so let him Eat of THAT Bread and Drink of THAT Cup v. 28. It is true it was Bread Metaphorically but it was still this Bread with an Emphasis not such Bread as you ordinarily Eat but the Body of Christ which he told us was truly Meat or Meat indeed the true Bread from Heaven John 6. 32. It was a Cup but it was this Cup that is his Blood which was truly Drink or Drink indeed as he also hath taught us John 6. 55. and after examination let the true Christian Eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup which will strengthen his Body and Soul both much more than the ordinary Bread and Wine can his Body only Our Saviour himself when he had said This is my Blood of the New Testament immediately adds but I say unto you I will not henceforth Drink of this Fruit of the Vine that is of the true Vine as our Lord is pleased to call himself or of that Wine which by the Words of Benediction becomes my Blood being Originally the Fruit of the Vine or possibly it may refer to the unconsecrated Wine that was left in the Vessels until I drink it new that is fresh and newly Consecrated again with you in my Fathers Kingdom or after my Resurrection as some with the Author interpret the place but as others more generally till I drink of that new Wine of another sort and nature in the Kingdom of my heavenly Father where we shall drink of the River of his pleasures Psal 36. 8. and therefore the Authors following observation is nothing worth For after the Apostles were satisfied that they really drank the Blood of our Lord in this Sacrament and fed upon his Real Body it was an easy and familiar Metaphor to call them Bread and Wine because the outward Species gave a sufficient hint for the understanding of this Figurative Speech suitable to the Language of Sense in the instances above mentioned out of Scripture and because there was true Spiritual nourishment conveyed to the faithful by the Body and Blood of our Saviour thus received as there is Corporeal nourishment received by the Natural Bread and Wine which we take for the refection of our Bodies DISCOURSE Besides if we consider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural Body and Blood of Christ because it was his Body broken and his Blood shed which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand literally of his natural Body broken and his blood shed then these words this is my Body which is broken and this is my Blood which is shed could not be true because his Body was then whole and unbroken and his Blood not then shed nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice as they affirm this Sacrament to be unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered And it is likewise impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given no his Body broken and this Blood shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body whole and unpierc'd and therefore they could not understand these words literally If they did can we imagine that the Disciples who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections should make no difficulty of this matter nor so much as ask our Saviour how can these things be that they should not tell him we see this to be Bread and that to be Wine and we see thy Body to be distinct from both we see thy Body not broken aud thy Blood not shed From all which it must needs be very evident to any man that will impartially consider things how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour this is my Body and This is my Blood in the sense of Transubstantiation nay on the contrary that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise I proceed to shew ANSWER Besides if we consider that our Lord celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible that these words should be understood otherwise than properly of the real Body and Blood of Christ because it was his Body broken and his Blood poured out which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand as figurative only of his natural Body broken and his Blood shed then these words this is my Body which is broken and this is my Blood which is shed could not be true because his
Himself or by his Disciples if no more had bin meant than so as he did in the case of Parables less difficult to understand than this would have bin if it had bin by our Lord proposed as one but proceeds to deliver this profound Mystery to them in more express words using a vehement Asseveration to confirm the truth of it Verily verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day For my Flesh is truly meat my Blood is truly drink He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father So he that eateth me even he shall live by me This is that Bread which came down from Heaven not as your Fathers did eat Manna and are Dead He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever All which words being used by our Lord to clear the doubt and answer that Question of the Jews How can this man give us his Flesh to eat I cannot imagin how the Real Presence of Christs Body and its Manducation in the Sacrament could have bin more fully Asserted in order to the disposing of his Disciples to believe the Sense of the Reality when he should Institute his blessed Sacrament And so the Fathers interpret this place And do not say that the Manna mentioned in the 58 verse which was miraculously sent from Heaven was a Type of ordinary Bread made by the Hands of Men and set upon the Table which is of a far more Ignoble Nature and less Significant than the Manna which thus came down from Heaven but of the Real Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was the true Bread from Heaven that nourished to Immortality After our Saviour had spoke thus to them many of the Disciples themselves to whom Christ did not think fit as yet to reveal the manner of feeding upon his Body in the Blessed Sacrament thinking that he meant that his Body was to be eaten in a gross manner like the Capernaites cried out this is a hard saying who can hear it To whom as well as to the Jews who before are said to murmur at him because he said I am the Bread which came down from Heaven and that ask how this Man could give them his Flesh to eat our Lord replies doth this offend you and then clears the Doctrins to them as far as he judg'd convenient for the confirmation of such high Mysteries about which they were to exercise a strong and a lively Faith by saying thus v. 62. What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before As if he should have said if you do not yet believe that the Son of Man came down from Heaven yet when you see him ascend thither again you will be more ready to believe that it was really God who came down took Flesh and dwelt amongst you which Solution had relation chiefly to the former of the Mysteries viz. his Incarnation but withal insinuates that such as believe not his words touching the holy Sacrament and think it impossible for him to give his Body to be eaten in so many places at once being yet on Earth would be much more Scandalized and Tempted after they saw or knew him to have Ascended into Heaven Therefore to clear the latter Mystery and Solve their doubt who thought like the Capernaites that Christ was to have cut pieces of flesh from his body and to have given them to be eaten or that thought his Body to be that of a mere Man he tells them v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing that is the Flesh which he had told them before that they must eat altho' not in the gross manner without the Spirit profiteth nothing not but that by the Spirit quickning it it profits very much Suitable to that of St. Paul. 1 Cor. 8. 1. Knowledge puffeth up but Charity edifieth that is Knowledge without Charity puffeth up altho' when Chariy is joyned with it to enliven it it edifies and Charity it self edifieth by Knowledge For if these words of Christ were to be taken in the Sense of the Sacramentarians they would derogate no less from his Incarnation Manhood and Death than from the Real Presence of his Body in the Sacrament in all which without doubt the flesh profiteth very much Wherefore our Lord goes on to tell them here that the words which he spake unto them were Spirit and Life therefore not to be understood in the gross carnal Sense before mentioned which some of his Disciples took them in For it is the use of the Scripture to call Mans natural Sense carnal Reasoning and resisting or not reaching to the belief of Supernatural Truths Flesh and Blood as Matth. 16. 17. Flesh and blood revealed not this to thee c. but the words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life therefore not to be carnally understood But as by the Word of God the World was Created and Nature hath been since often chang'd so there is no doubt but Christ could by it change the Bread into his Body as he did daily by ordinary Natural Nutrition but here in a supernatural way Our Lord therefore said unto them that their Fathers did Eat Manna in the Wilderness which was but a Type of this Heavenly Manna in the Sacrament and yet they did Spiritually feed upon Christ the Messias for it is said 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. That they did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all Drink the same Spiritual Drink for they Drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ and yet they are Dead all of them a Temporal some of them an Eternal Death also and those of them which now live the Life Eternal received this Life from the Son of God who hath now given us the Antitype of that Manna which the Children of Israel did eat viz. his own Body in the Sacrament something of a far more excellent nature to feed upon which will be to our Bodies as well as to our Souls the Seed of Immortality the Instrument and Pledge of our Resurrection Ascension and Glorification Yet as our Lord said to his Disciples there are some of you which believe not so we may say still of the Sacramentarians who notwithstanding all that Christ hath said will admit of nothing but Signs and Figures of imaginary vertue whom nevertheless our Saviour hath no further instructed in any such easie Sense as this which might certainly have prevented their relapse as well as that of the Jews his Disciples and which if any such Sense had been to be admitted would most certainly have been given that they will not believe our Lord and therefore they go
inferreth Transubstantiation 61 28. The Conclusion of this Head of Discourse upon Scripture Authority for the Real Presence and Transubstantiation and of the first Part of the Answer to the Discourse against Transubstantiation 63 FINIS * Publisht at Dublin a Mr. Arnauds two last Volums concerning the Perpetuity of the Faith c. b Pa. 42. Of the Discourse against Transubstantiation Resp ad Apol. Bell. c. 7. p. 11. * Vid. Two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist c. c. 2. of the first Discourse Printed at Oxford An 1687. * Dr. Burnet in his History of the Reformation Part 2. p. 390. Of the Reign of Qu. Elizabeth See also Dr. Heylins Cyprianus Anglicus p. 22. in the Introduction * Part 2. of Hist Reform p. 405. * In Psal 98. * Can. 6. de Eucharistia in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei filium cultu Latriae adorandum * In a Treatise intitled several Conferences c. a Pag. 65. * See their 28 Art. of Religion which confirms the Body of Christ to be given taken and eaten in the Supper after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and Catec where it is said the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and in deed taken and received The forecited Author doth not well defend this Doctrin * Sess 13. c. 1. Neque enim haec inter se pugnant juxta modum existendi naturalem Salvatorem nostrum in coelis assidere ad dextram Patris nobis substantiâ suā adesse praesentem Sacramentaliter eâ existendi ratione quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus possibilem lamen esse Deo cogitatione per fidem illustratâ assequi possumus * Paschasius Epist ad Frudegard Miror quid volunt quidem nunc dicere non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem concerning which Real Presence it is said Vsque ad praesens nemo deerrasse legitur nisi qui de Christo erraverunt and futher Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen est adhuc in aperto qui hoc ita esse contradicat quod totus orbis credit confitetur * De Christo loquens Concilium eujus corpus sanguis in Sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis vini veraciter continentur Transubstantiatis pane in Corpus vino in sanguinem potestate Divinâ Concil Lateranense 4. Generale Anno Christi 1215. vid. in Binnio c. 1. p. 806. * Historia Concil Triden Francofurti Edit 1521. lib. 4. pa. 367. In Congregatione mox Generali Statutum in dogmate conficiendo verbis uti quam paucissimis iisque adeo universalibus ut uirisque viz. Scoti Thomae Sectatoribus quaent satisfacere ad uiriusque partis sensum commodè aptari a In parte seconda del Istoria del Concilio di Trento l. 12. cap. primo Speaking of the Definitions of the Council hath these words Le quali tutte sono cosi circuspette che tolora paiono in cercar forme di parole lontane da ogni sembianza di pregiudicio à veruna delle Classi Teologiche E percio niente si volle determinare intorno al modo della presenza Sacramentale di Cristo b Praesentiam credimus nec minus quam vos veram de modo praesentiae nihil temerè definimus addo nec anxie inquiramus Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apoll. Bell. c. 1. p. 11. 1 Cor. 15. 38. * Vt enim illic verbi Dei gratia sanctum efficit illud corpus cujus firmamentum ex pane constabat ipsum etiam quodammodo panis erat sic etiam hic panis ut ait Apostolus per verbum Dei orationem Sanctificatur non quia comeditur eo progrediens ut verbi corpus evadat sed statim per verbum in corpus mutatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut dictum est à verbo hoc est corpus meum Catecbet Orat. c. 37. a Dr. Taylor of the Real Presence pa. 237. b Idem Liberty of Prophecying §. 20. n. 16. c Dr. Stillingfleet Rat. account p. 117. and 565. d Bishop Forbes p. 395. Vid. etiam confessionem Theologorum Wirtemberg in Confess A. 1552. * Sess 13. de Euchar. c. 4. Quoniam autem Christus Redemptor noster corpus suum id quod subspecie panis offerebat verè esse dixit ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit idque nunc sancta haec Synodus declarat per Consecrationem Panis Vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam Corporis Christi Domini nostri totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus quae Conversio convenienter propriè à Sanctae Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio est appellata * See also p. 26 27. of the Answer * See Veteres Vindicati in an Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney pa. 57. * Observe that this is no Induction but rather a Sorites altho' the Author knew not how to put the Subject and Predicate in their right places See any Common Logic. * See Expostulatory Letter pa. 58. * Pag. 33. c. * Ipse panis vinum transmutantur in corpus Sanguinem Dei. Nec quicquam nobis amplius perspectum exploratum est quam quod verbum Dei verum est efficax atque omnipotens S. Johan Damascen lib. 3. Orthodox fidei c. 14. a Caligula * See p. 11. In the Discourse against Transubstantiation Edit Londini 1684. * Pag. 102. A Brief Discourse of the Real Presence Printed 1686. and Licenc'd by Guil. Needham Archiep. Cant. à Sac. Domest * Viz. The Author of the Brief Discourse c. cited supra Our Adversary doth not rightly State the Point See two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the Sacrament Printed at Oxford 1687. Pag. 1. 8. What is meant by Transubstantiation a S. Augustin Putaverunt quod praecisurus esset Dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo daturus illis dixerunt durus est hic sermo ipsi erant duri non sermo in Psal 98. adorate scabellum c. The argument from sense shew'd to be senseless * Quod vidistis panis est calix quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda panis est corpus Christi calix Sanguis ejus Augustinus Serm ad infant The Catholic Faith ridiculd by the Adversary The Real Presence depends on Gods Veracity No-transubstantiation an Article of Faith with our Adversaries and establisht with Penalties See the Penal Laws and Tests The Method of the ensuing Discourse The necessity of understanding our Lords words in the Sense of the Real Presence Luke 22. 20. * hoc Simulachrum est virgo quod filium Dei peperit * Solecophanes * Contra Westphal Hoc quidem saepe diximus quod nunc quoque repetam retineri