hath styled it which I hope to prove hereafter If the second then to use the Argument and Words of our Discourser p. 30. Christanity would become a most uncertain and endless thing for if we may thus change our Faith in such high and fundamental Doctrines as these are I know not what security we have that we shall not in time change our Faith in other necessaries and at length lose it all But to pin up the Basket as we say I shall conclude with the Testimonies of Calvin and Beza men to whom the Church of England is obliged for a great part of her Reformation Calvin upon 1 Cor. 11.24 Take eat this is my Body says thus Nor doth Christ only offer to us the benefits of his Death and Resurrection but that Body it self in which he suffered and rose again And again Instit l. 4. c. 17. Being made partakers of his Substance we perceive also the vertue of it in the Communication of all good things I know no other Substance he had spiritual or corporal but that which was born of the Blessed Virgin And of the Lutherans he says If they so explain their meaning that whilst the Bread is delivered there is annext to it the exhibition of his Body because the Truth is inseparable from its Sign I should not much oppose them And to strengthen this Assertion of Calvin I shall add the Confession of Beza and others of the same Sect related by Hospinian Hist Sacram. parte altera p. 251. We confess that in the Cup of our Lord not only all the Benefits of Christ but the very substance of the Son of man I say that very Flesh and that very Blood which he poured out for us not only significatively symbolically typically or figuratively as a remembrance of one absent but truly and certainly represented exhibited and offer'd not as naked Symbols but as having from God himself promising and offering the very thing it self truly and certainly joyned to them Now the manner by which the thing it self i.e. the very Body and the very Blood of our Lord is joyned with the Symbols we say it is Symbolical or Sacramental But we call it a Sacramental manner not that it is only Figurative but that it truly and certainly represents under the Species of visible Things that which God exhibits and offers with the Symbols that is as I said before the very Body and Blood of Christ And then he tells us That he differs with others concerning the manner of the Presence only but for the very Thing and Presence it self he retains and defends it And now Reverend Fathers I must acquaint you that whilst I was transcribing this very last Paragraph I was inform'd that there was an Answer lately publisht to Two Discourses printed at Oxford which contained in them the Testimonies of these Learned Protestants before mentioned I stopt my Pen bought the Book and read it over with great care I shall not at present speak any thing more of it in particular than what relates to this very Subject but in general give me leave to tell you that me thoughts this Answerer might very well have spar'd his Apology at last p. 125. for not having insisted more largely upon some points since I have not seen Twenty two Sheets written with so much magisterial Confidence and in my judgment with so little Substance even among all the Pamphlets that have come out on both sides from the Death of the late King to this present day but I leave the further examination to the Conclusion of this Discourse First we thank him for his plainness in delivering his opinion concerning the Real Presence which is the subject Matter in Debate and by which he tells us is meant no more than invisible Power and Grace in exclusion of the Real Presence of Christs Natural Body even after a spiritual manner Whether the Church of England will thank him for it I know not I am sure I was otherwise instructed and believed otherwise whilst in your Communion But let us hear what he says to these Testimonies He endeavours to elude their most plain indubitable sense and grammatical construction even according to the common Reason and Understanding of all Mankind these several ways First he tell us that Becanus says the Calvinists deny the Body and Blood of Christ to be truly really and substantially present in the Eucharist Not I hope according to that sense which our Answerer would make Calvin and others give of those and such like expressions But sure our Answerer might have collected among his other Protestant Relics an account of a rigider sort of Calvinists who reform'd even upon Calvin himself and yet retain'd the name of Calvinists But what doth Calvin himself say as this Answerer recites out of Hospinian Why that Christ is our Food because by the incomprehensible Vertue of the holy Spirit he inspires his Life into us that he may communicate it to us no less than the Vital Juice is diffused from the Root into all the Branches of the Tree c. No less than so then sure it is as substantial a Communication of Christ's Natural Body after a spiritual manner as the Oxford Discourser in that place pretends to for if Calvin and this Answerer do not believe that the Vital Juice of a Tree is a Substance tho' whilst a Juice more spiritual and that the very Substance of the Tree is substantially nourished and increased thereby I fear they will both prove as bad Philosophers as Divines But before I proceed any further I must inform or mind our Answerer that tho' Catholics believe Christ's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament yet they deny it to be there bodily i.e. Modo Corporeo and tho' his Flesh be there yet not Fleshly nor yet doth his Natural Body leave the highest Heavens These premised because we shall have occasion to make these distinctions I come to next to Beza His words as recited by the Answerer are these We do not say that in the Eucharist there is only a Commemoration of the Death of our Lord Jesus Christ nor do we say that in it we are made partakers only of the Fruits of his Death and Passion but we joyn the Ground with the Fruits affirming with St. Paul that the Bread which by God's appointment we break is the participation of the Body of Christ crucified for us the Cup which we drink the Communion of the true Blood that was shed for us and that in the very same Substance which he received in the Womb of the Virgin and which he carried up with him into the Heavens And afterwards For this honor we allow to God that tho' the Body of Jesus Christ be now in Heaven and not elsewhere and we on Earth and not elsewhere yet are we made partakers of his Body and Blood after a spiritual manner i.e. modo spirituali and by the means of Faith P. 50. I am afraid Fathers this Answerer plays
eating were according to his false Conceptions proceeds from the narrowness of his own thoughts who would judge and measure the Civility and Reason of the whole World according to the Customs it may be of his own little Province But tho no Catholic thus pretended to eat the Body and Blood of Christ for that they all know he is immortal and uncapable of Death or Suffering or Corruption or any other indignities yet our Discourser will needs compare this eating in the holy Sacrament to the violent hacking and slashing of our living Friends and carnally devouring their raw Flesh like the worst of Cannibals What an odious and disproportionate Comparison hath he made on purpose to deceive his Friends and revile and scandalize those whom he supposes his Enemies But before I quit this Page I must pay my respects to one main Demonstration of his which he says is worth a thousand and it is this That the Heathens objected no such Custom to the Christians therefore no such Doctrine believed Now this piece of Malice might have past undisturb'd with many others which I have not taken notice of had he not had the confidence I will not use his own expression Impudence to have provok't an Answer by producing the half Testimony of Justin Martyr in p. 11. to countenance his own Error where that very Father in that very place is making an Apology to the Heathen Emperor Antoninus and is so far from mincing the Matter or explaining it by a figurative Sense That he there tells the Emperor We are taught that the Food speaking of the Sacrament being Consecrated by the Prayer of the Word Is the Flesh and Blood of Christ Jesus himself Incarnate Illius incarnati Jesu Carnem Sanguinem esse edocti sumus Apol. 2. It is most prodigiously strange and inexcusable in this holy Father to have us'd this scandalous Metaphor to a Heathen Emperor which they cautiously exprest to the Christian Catechumens if he intended nothing more than a figurative Sense For I will refer my self to any Man whether it had not been more prudent and it may be pious to have softned and moderated the expression to a Heathen tho the Father had truly believed the Real Presence than thus to have expos'd himself and laid an unnecessary stumbling-block before the Emperor if indeed he did not believe it But our Discourser not satisfied with this tells us a Story p. 12. That the Heathen Greeks having taken some Servants of the Christian Catechumeni urg'd them by violence to tell them some Secrets of the Christians who confest That they had heard from their Masters that the Divine Communion was the Body and Blood of Christ and that they i. e. the Catechumeni thinking that it was really Flesh and Blood declar'd as much to the Greeks And yet our Discourser in p. 35. will not admit that any such thing was ever objected by the Heathens to the Christians altho ' by violence the Christians themselves confest it What a bold conceited Discourser is this who whilst he manifestly confutes himself thinks his Adversaries so impotent as not only not to have any defensive Arms of their own but also not to dare to make use of his when he so fairly offers them against his own false Arguments His mis◠application of the whole Story from the Answer of Blandina which he strangely mistakes is very silly For what Catholics ever thought that the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament was a breach of their Fast If any had by mistake some such thoughts as Tertullian seems to insinuate the breach of their Fast must be imputed to the receipt of the Symbols or Accidents of Bread and Wine which indeed may nourish but not to the Body and Blood of Christ Now had not our Discourser thus demonstrably answered himself and saved us thereby a further labour I could have recommended him to S◠Greg. Nazian St. Augustin and several others of the Fathers where he would have found these Objections made to the Christians and their Answers to them much after the manner of Justin Martyr And nothing is told us more plainly in the Histories of those times than that the Heathens having a confused Notion of the great Mystery of the Sacrament did commonly accuse the Christians of eating Mans Flesh or young Children or sometimes their God Sure our Discourser intended to prevent us from using this Argument our selves for this Objection of the Heathens hath ever been accounted a kind of Demonstration of the Antiquity of our Doctrine His third Objection is from the bloody Consequences of this Doctrine But he gives us no particular instances and he doth well to grow more wise 〈◊〉 last for he hath been very unlucky in them Since therefore he is pleased only to affirm in general I am contented to deny in general and so we are upon even ground His last Objection is from the danger of Idolatry if this Doctrine be not true and I add the danger of our Discoursers most execrable Blasphemies if this Doctrine be true let us therefore both consider seriously of it since the danger on both sides is very great However we have the Authorities of many Learned Church of England Men as may be seen at large in the Oxford Discourser who have acquitted us of Idolatry Whilst our Discourser stands almost single in the scurrilous bitterness of his rude and unmanly expressions And here I thought our Discourser would have ended his dire wrath against Transubstantiation but to be yet more secure and with good Reason too that it may never rise up in Judgment against him he comes back again and in p. 37. gives it four wounds more for the absurdity of its Doctrine and these are performed by way of Four very considerable Questions As First p. 38. Whether this Doctrine doth not contradict his Senses Secondly Whether it can be proved by his Senses Thirdly Whether it be not against the certainty of his Senses And Lastly Whether it be not against the Evidence of his Senses Now because to me these retail'd Questions seem to import much the same thing I will take the liberty for the sake of a speedier Conclusion to give my Opinion concerning them in gross Before we consider the monstrous Absurdities of this Doctrine set forth in these four great Questions it is reasonable that we seriously think with our selves upon what account this Sensless Doctrine should happen to get such firm footing in the World as to have spread in a very short time as our Discourser supposes over the face of the whole Christian Church Nay more That in all probability it might have been universally receiv'd even at this day had not the extraordinary Learning Reason Sense and I know not what other qualifications of John Scotus Berengarius Zuinglius and our Discourser opened the Eyes of poor blinded Christians and shewn them how their Senses were lead Captivity Captive by the Jugling tricks
and was Invisible I hope the two first Reasons will be taken off by consent And first it is understood I think by all Mat. 17. that the Body of Christ when he was transfigur'd did exist after a Supernatural manner and was freed for the time being from the clog and earthly limitations of common humane Bodies Secondly It is plain that after his Resurrection Jesus made his Body become Invisible The Text tells us That he appear'd in several Forms After that he appear'd in another Form unto two of them Mark 16. v. 12. Which I suppose is somewhat above Nature Also the third time when Jesus shewed himself to his Disciples at the Sea of Tiberias he had changed again his Form for they knew him not John c. 21. Nor was he known the first time by Mary Magdalen but was mistaken by her for the Gardiner But in Luke 24. It is clearly exprest That Jesus appear'd to his Disciples after the manner of a Spirit for it is said in v. 36. And as they thus spake Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and said unto them peace be unto you But they were terrified and affrighted and supposed that they seen a spirit Now altho' the Circumstances in this Text sufficiently denote that our Saviour came not to his Disciples progressively after the manner of humane Bodies but that eodem instante he appear'd in the midst of them which was the cause of their fear for they were told before that our Lord was risen Yet the preceding v. 31. of the same Chapter leads so manifestly to this Interpretation that there is no colour left to doubt for it is there written That after our Lord had been ignorantly entertain'd by the two Disciples at Emmaus at last Their eyes were opened and they knew him and he vanished out of their sight This agrees also with the account which we have from St. John c. 20. v. 19. Where it is said The same day at Evening when the Dores were shut came Jesus and stood in the midst of them The same Circumstance is also repeated in v. 26. In vain do ye therefore so often Object to us Worthy Fathers the necessity of believing our Senses in all things and upon all Occasions since you see how the Apostles themselves were deceived by them even concerning the real visible corporal Presence of Christ upon Earth As for St. Thomas and the Confirmation from the Evidence of his Senses our Saviour reproacht his want of Faith and suffer'd him to put his doubting hand into his Sacred Wounds not so much to shew him that he was meer Man as to convince them that he was God and Man God from his infinite Power in being able to make his Natural Body exist after the manner of a Spirit which they had seen before and were terrified at it And Man in that nevertheless he had the shape and Substance of that very Body in which he suffer'd Nor must we think that these Supernatural changes were done by chance or without the blessed design of the Divine Wisdome for the Disciples who hitherto had doubted concerning the great Article of the Resurrection of the Flesh were not only hereby convinced of this necessary truth but were also taught after what manner their Bodies should be raised from the dead Or as S. Paul says 1 Cor. c. 15. What Bodies they do become S. Paul gives them their Answer v. 36. Thou fool that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die Then telling us of the several differences between Bodies some more and some less glorified he proceeds v. 42. So also is the Resurrection of the Dead It is sown in Corruption it is raised in Incorruption It is sown in Dishonor it is raised in Glory It is sown in Weakness it is raised in Power It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a Spiritual Body And this our Saviour had before experimentally taught them by the differing and Spiritual manner of the Existence of his own Body confirming also has Divinity by that Power which he exercised upon it according to that of S. Matthew c. 28. v. 18. All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth If then our common Sinful Bodies shall have this Glory Power and Spirituality when they are raised from the Dead and probably be subject then to the Soul as the Soul is now to the Body who will dare to prescribe Laws to the holy and spotless Body of our Lord united to his Divinity However it be the vindication of the Real Presence seems to concern your selves worthy Fathers or at least many other Protestants no less than Catholics and if that be admitted methinks Transubstantiation should not be so rudely refused Entrance For give me leave to ask you from what Authority you pretend to tell us That Christ is really Present in the Sacrament except you mean as in all other pious Duties If you deny this real Presence you stand separate from the whole Christian World Lutherans as well as Catholics which is no very good Argument that you are in the right If you confess it solve these difficulties your selves for it concerns you no less than us But if again you do not confess it then tell me I say what ground you have from Scripture to name those words except as a consequence from these This is my Body and upon the Supposition that at least the Substance of the Bread is become after Consecration the very Body of our Lord You tell us again That we do verily truly and indeed receive the very Body of Christ That born of the Virgin Mary which suffer'd for us and rose from the Dead Let me enquire again what Authority you have to use those words if you do not literally intend the thing Spiritual Graces proceed not from his Humanity but from his Divinity Faith is one of these Spiritual Graces and the immediate Gift of God and signifies only this at least in this place That Christ was the Son of God that he became Man that he died for us and rose again from the dead What hath this to do with eating his Body and drinking his Blood A Commemoration only of his Death it cannot mean nor could the Apostles so understand it except you can shew me some such like Metaphor used to express the memorial of a Man after his death But if neither before our Saviours Passion nor since amongst Jews Heathens or Christians such an Expression was ever used why must we believe that Christ spake or the Apostles understood different from all the expressions of mankind since the Creation of Adam When the Master of the House in Celebrating the Paschal Supper said This is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt true Bread was really deliver'd and the Memorial was proper When Moses said Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you It was very Blood which Moses sprinkled on the People Exod. 24. v. 8.