occasion of its first rise could not be assigned Did not a considerable part of Christendom with all their might oppose the Turkish Invasion and if all had been quiet would not Vienna have been surprised and pilledged Was all England ignorant of the Restauration of our Gracious Monarch and were there none to be found to witness his coming in were not the Tares as soon as they sprung up seen and discovered But no body except Heretics ever opposed Transubstantiation No body but Rebels rofe against the right Prerogative of their Prince And what has the Parable of the Tares to do with the Blessed Sacrament The same confidence is sufficient to extend the same Comparison to the rest of our Christian Mysteries and proves just as much that is nothing at all except Christianity be nothing else but Tares SECT III. Of the Infallible Authority of the Present Church for this Doctrin YOU say the Roman Church made and obtruded upon the World this Article merely by vertue of her Authority Seeing not any sufficient reason either from Scripture or Tradition for the belief of it The Roman Catholic Church never taught any of her Children that She had Power from God to make an Article of Faith. But She teaches us that two Conditions are required for the constitution of an Article of Faith. First Revelation from God. Secondly The Declaration of an Oecumenical Council Where these two agree that we are taught is part of our Belief And I shall desire you will only peruse these words of the Council of Trent which intimate the Reason why the Church of God declared for Transubstantiation and I am persuaded you 'l believe She did not define this Doctrin neither warranted with Scripture nor Tradition For the Council says Because Christ our Saviour truly said that was his Body which under the Species of Bread he offered therefore the Church of God was always persuaded and this Holy Council declares again the same that by the consecration of Bread and Wine the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of the Body of our Lord and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of the Blood which Conversion is conveniently and properly called by the Council Transubstantiation SECT IV. Of the Necessity of such a Change for the benefit of the Receiver THE Spiritual Efficacy of the Sacrament depends upon receiving the thing which our Lord instituted and a right preparation and disposition of mind which makes it effectual to those Spiritual Ends for which it was appointed As God might without any Baptismal Water without any visible Elements have washed away the Stains of Original Sin and given Spiritual Regeneration So could he have made the worthy Receivers true Partakers of the Spiritual Comfort and Benefit design'd to us in the Lord's Supper without any substantial change made in the nature of Bread and Wine But as we cannot say the Water in Baptism and Symbols are unprofitable as things are instituted by God and useless for the cleansing of Original Sin so likewise ought we not to pretend that the Flesh of Christ is useless and profiteth nothing to the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament because Christ without this may give us the benefit or fruit of the Sacrament God might have pardon'd the World if his only begotten Son had not undergon so many griefs and anguishes so much pain and that ignominious death of the Cross Yet who dare say this Flesh was not true Flesh or profited nothing which redeemed all the World If it profited on the Cross why does it not profit in the Sacrament And if it profit not without Faith how can it profit those who believe not The very thought of our Saviour's Substantial Presence in the Sacrament strikes much a deeper impression of Devotion in my Soul than if I reflected on bare Symbols or Signs weakly exciting Faith in me And even when a Terrene Prince visits Prisons or in a Solemn Pomp enters the Capital City his Corporal Presence customarily frees many Criminals from Chains Fetters and Imprisonments which the Law would otherwise not have granted nor the King consented too And yet one word of command is sufficient to do greater execution SECT V. Of the Power of the Priest WE acknowledge a Power in the Priest which is not in the People All were not constituted Apostles all were not Doctors But we do not acknowledge a Power in the Priest to make God as you calumniate us we acknowledge a Power in God to change one Substance into another Bread into his Body Till you prove this impossible which is impossible to be done you 'll give us leave to believe God is in the right possession of his Omnipotency and loses nothing of his Power by your Detraction And if you count this Miraculous change no Miracle give it what Title you please we will not dispute the Name if you contradict not the thing And thus I have dispatched the first part of my Answer which was to vindicate the real Grounds and Reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin PART I MY Second Part was designed to answer your Objections which are of so much the less force because I have already shewn this Doctrin sufficiently warranted with Divine Authority and this easily weighs down and overthrows whatever Probabilities Sense can suggest or Reason invent These Probabilities you reduce to these two Heads First The infinite Scandal of this Doctrin to the Christian Religion And Secondly The monstrous and insupportable Absurdity of it CHAP. I. Of the infinite Scandal of this Doctrin to the Christian Religion AND this upon four accounts First by reason of the Stupidity of this Doctrin Secondly The real barbarousness of it Thirdly The Bloody consequences of it Fourthly The danger of Idolatry Article I. Of the Stupidity of this Doctrin TUlly the Roman Orator says When we call the Fruits of the Earth Ceres and Wine Bacchus we use but the common Language but do you think any man so mad as to believe what he eats to be God I am of Cicero's Opinion And all reasonable People look upon Poetical Fancies as Extravagant Reveries But I hope the Law of Christ is neither Poetical nor Fabulous I remember the Poets sing how Minerva the Goddess of Wisdom was born of Jupiter's Understanding Harken says Tertullian a Fable but a true one like to this The Word of God proceeding from the Thought of his Eternal Father This Likeness or Similitude of Poetical invention diminishes not in the least the truth of the Son's Divinity Nor ought the Stupidity of eating God in Tully's Opinion ridicule our Saviour's own Words Take eat this is my Body Averröes the Arabian Philosopher acknowledging in his time this Doctrin to be the Profession of all Christians ought to make not what you say the Church of Rome the Church of England blush objecting that the whole Society of Christians then every where admitted Transubstantiation I have
Sense understand this to be meant of true Bread Others notwithstanding this natural Exposition in the behalf of the Roman Catholic Assertion will have the word Communion to signifie the Substance of Bread. If it must signifie Substance let us deal fairly and in the place of Communion substitute the word Substance and so we shall easily see to what this Substance belongs The Bread which we break is it not the Substance of the Body of Christ Neither can the Church of Rome as well argue from the following Verse 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body that all Christians are substantially chang'd first into Bread and then into the Natural Body of Christ as you will have it Because we see no Reason in the World for this And the Divine Apostle instructs us otherwise declaring the precise and only Reason of this Unity For we are all Partakers of the same Body 'T is Participation not any Substantial Change in our selves makes us one in Christ Nor is a pressing Example wanting in the Apostle to the same purpose are not they the Pagans which eat of the Sacrifices Partakers of the Altar You instance the same Apostle speaking of the Consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three Verses together This is Acute and Subtile But each Witty Contrivance is not true It is not true St. Paul calls the Consecrated Elements the Bread and the Wine We read indeed in three Verses together the bare word of Bread attributed to the Eucharist as often as you eat this Bread and this is all we read which may be said without any prejudice to the Substantial Change. And this for two Reasons both dictated by the Holy Ghost First By reason of the outward appearance of Bread. Secondly Because it formerly was Bread. The First Reason St. Luke authorises in the Acts. Behold two Men stood by them in white apparel Here the bare Name of Man is attributed to Angels and Angels are only Men in appearance The Second Reason is deduced from two Substantial Conversions We read in Exodus They cast down every Man his Rod and they became Serpents but Aaron's Rod swallowed up the Rods of the Magicians And in St. John when the Ruler of the Feast had tasted the Water that was Wine He tasted Water and the Water was Wine The Serpent is called a Rod and was a Serpent because the Serpent and the Wine were formerly a Rod and Water It is then true that the bare Name of bread may be attributed to the Eucharist without any prejudice of the Substantial Change of Bread into the true Body of Christ And if it be not true that St. Paul says the Consecrated Elements are Bread and Wine it is true that St. Paul calls the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body Jesus took Bread and when he had given thanks brake it and said take eat this is my Body which is broken for you So does St. Chrysostom What is the Bread the Body of Christ So does St. Ambrose This Bread is Flesh You resume this is my Body which is broken cannot be literally understood of his Natural Body broken because his Body was then whole and unbroken I answer how can you contradict our Saviour who says this is my Body which is broken And if it be Christ's Body 't is his real Body for he had no Phantasm or imaginary Body Nor did I ever hear that Christ had two real Bodies But the same Body may have two different existences a Natural and Supernatural Existence For if God can give a Natural Existence to what is not can what is hinder God from adding a Supernatural Existence Now these Words which is broken cannot be understood of the Natural Existence of our Saviour's Body hanging on the Cross for there his Body was unbroken whence that of St. Chrysistom we may see this in the Eucharist and the contrary on the Cross His bones shall not be broken Nor is it hard to conceive how the Body of Christ may be said to be broken in the Sacrament For as a Substance is said to be visible by reason of the visible accidents which environ it Thus we commonly say I saw a Man and yet nor Soul nor Substance of the Body but only the shape and outward appearance of the Substance was the object of the Eye So likewise Christ's Body in the Sacrament takes the denomination of broken from the Species of Bread which is truly divided Article V. The Silence of the Apostles at the Institution YOU ought not to be surprised if the Disciples frequently full of Questions and Objections should make no difficulty of this matter when our Saviour instituted the Sacrament not so much as ask our Saviour How can these things be or tell him We see this to be Bread and Wine and thy Body distinct from both My reason is because when the Jews and the Disciples were blamed for these inquiries at the promise of our Saviour the Apostles assisted with Divine Grace gave credit to our Saviour's Words And if they believed the Promise why should they be disquieted at the Institution We read after these words in St. John where the Promise of Christ in the Sacrament is given The Bread which I will give is my Flesh This Passage the Jews therefore strove amongst themselves saying how can this man give us his Flesh to eat This Jewish Opposition was seconded with the murmur of Christ's Disciples many therefore of his Disciples when they had heard this said This is an hard saying who can hear it This murmur after all our Saviour's Arguments to settle the Jews in the belief of what was promised ended in a plain desertion or leaving of Jesus from that time many of his Disciples went and walked no more with him Here is the reluctancy you sought for and the Objections you demanded in the Apostles But do you think this Resistance was laudable in the Jews Do you believe this Opposition was commendable in the Disciples Or rather to be disturbed at our Saviour's Ordination and Assertion Is it not the beginning of Incredulity And yet for all this you raise Sense and erect it as an Idol to the Peoples Devotions Bewitching Sense whose Allurements intice the greatest Integrity of Noblest Souls and would win too their Thoughts if less than a God interposed Hence this Speech of St. Hilary that great Persecutor of Arianism There is folly in declaring for Jesus Christ had we not received from him this Lesson of Truth Jesus says the Bread is truly Flesh and the Wine is truly Blood after this Declaration ther 's left no place to doubt of the verity of his Flesh and Blood. St. Ambrose opposes to the restless importunity of Sense the prerogative of the Deity Lest asking of God what we expect from man reason of things we should entrench upon Divine Prerogatives And what more unworthy than to believe men
receiving in the Sacrament from the presence of Christ's Immortal Body the living Seed of Incorruption rise when dissolved by death increased with Immortality This agrees well with St. Irenaeus's design demonstrating in the place objected that our Bodies are capable of Resurrection because we receive in the Sacrament the true Body of Christ that Body which consists of Flesh Blood and Bones How can they deny says he the Flesh to be capable of the Gift of God For we are Members of his Body of his Flesh and of his Bones This is not spoken of a Spiritual or Metaphorical Man for a Spirit has neither Bone nor Flesh but it is delivered according to the disposition of Man which consists of Flesh of Nerves and Bones which is nourished with the Chalice which is his Blood and increased with the Bread which is his Body Do not Flesh Nerves Bones and Blood belong to a true Substantial Body You add St. Irenaeus 's words preserved by Oecumenius when the Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catecumeni that is such as were disposed but not yet baptized and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians These Servants having nothing to say that might gratifie those who offered violence to them except only that they had heard from their Masters that the Divine Communion was the Blood and Body of Christ they thinking that it was really Blood and Flesh declared as much to those who question'd them The Greeks taking this as it really were done by the Christians discovered it to others of the Greeks who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confess it To whom Blandina boldly answered how would they endure to do this who by way of exercise or abstinence do not eat that Flesh which may lawfully be eaten Now if we consider Blandina's Answer we shall find therein contained a pious denyal of what was objected and a Christian reserve of what was received in the Sacrament A pious denial of eating the Flesh and Blood of a Child as the Greeks and all Pagans conceived after a carnal manner which shall be more amply discoursed hereafter And this caused Blandina to say How could they be guilty of such a heinous eating who abstain upon fasting days from Flesh which may lawfully be eaten A Christian reserve not discovering the Mystery to Pagans which was esteemed a betraying of Religion Thus Tharsilius the Acholyt as venerable Beda relates having the blessed Sacrament about him was seized on by the Barbarians and martyr'd because he refused to shew it St. Ambrose declares the discovery of the Mystery to those who were not baptized pass'd not for an instruction but for a sort of Treason in Religion St. Cyril says We speak not clearly of the Mystery to the Catecumeni and we are often constrained to make use of such Expressions which are understood by the Faithful instructed and do not offend other Assistants Such was Blandina's Reply which neither offended the Greeks nor betrayed the Mystery Article III. Upon Tertullian TErtullian proves against Marcion as you write the Heretique That the Body of our Saviour was not a meer Phantasm and Appearance but a real Body because the Sacrament is a Figure and an Image of his Body His Words are these The Bread which our Saviour took and gave to his Disciples he made his own Body saying this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body But it could not have been a Figure of his Body if there had not been a true and real Body Tertullian often sententious and difficult in expression as Lactantius and St. Jerom affirm may easily be misunderstood and misrepresented This Father's design here is to confute the Marcionites who defended that the God of the Old Testament was opposite to God the Father of Christ Author of the New Law. He makes good this undertaking proving the perfect agreement of both Testaments completed in Jesus who did not abolish but fulfil the Law when he changed the Shadow into a Body the Figure into Truth As Tertullian phrases it in his Fisth Book against Marcion This Accomplishment he shew'd from that of Jeremy where we read how the Jews fast'ned to the Cross the Bread of Christ that is his Body This he evidenced because Bread in the Old Law was a Figure of Christ's Body These are his Words It is what God has revealed in your own Gospel calling Bread his Body making known by this that Christ whose Body the Prophet represented in Bread long before he fulfilled this Figure gave from this very time of the Prophecy Bread to be the Figure of his Body These Words Christ gave the Bread even from the time of Jeremy to be the Figure of his Body represent Christ as Master and these others Jeremy represented in Bread the Body of Christ exhibit the Prophet as Minister Both testifie that Bread was a Figure in the Written Law and the Subordination of Jeremy to Jesus proves the concord of Christ with the ancient Testament which was Tertullian's peculiar Task The same he pursues in the place by you cited Bread He made his own Body saying this is my Body that is a Figure in the Prophet of Christ's Body This sense agrees well with the foregoing Tenor of this learned Father's Discourse 2. These following Words are another Confirmation But it would not have been a Figure of his Body if there was not a true Body He does not say it was not a Figure he says it would not have been a Figure in the Old Law. 3. Marcion argues for you but why did he call Bread his Body and not something else Tertullian answers that he argued thus not knowing Bread was an ancient Figure of the Body of Christ as we learn from Jeremy 4. He confirms the same in these Words You may likewise acknowledge the Old Figure of Blood in Wine It follows also from hence that our Saviour's Body was not a Phantasm or an Appearance which was another of the Marcionits Errors but a real Body not that the Sacrament as you would have it but that Bread in the Old Law as I have demonstrated was a Figure and Image of his Body in the Sacrament which must be a true Body otherwise there is a Figure of a Figure which your own party will not allow of Nor could it adds Tertullian have been a Figure of his Body if there had not been a true and real Body If for all this you will pretend that as Bread in the Prophet was a Figure so likewise is Bread still in the Eucharist a Figure of Christ's Body I may without prejudice to the Catholic Belief humour you so far as to grant the Sacramental Bread is a Figure but a Figure joyned to the Reality For if you will say what you find not in Tertullian that the Bread in the Sacrament is