with CHRIST IESVS which is not to be found any where else It is easy for them to vnderstand that his Body is giuen vs to assure vs that we partake in his Sacrifice and in his Death They distinguish cleerly these two manners necessary to vnite vs to CHRIST IESVS the one is by taking his proper Flesh the other by receauing his Spirit the first thereof is granted vs as a pledge and security of the second but by reason things can not be explicated in the opinions held by our Aduersaries though on the other side they can not disauowe them we can not choose but conclude that their Error hath cast them into a manifest Contradiction I haue often wondred why they did not deliuer and explaine their Doctrine in a more familiar and simple manner Why haue they not persisted in saying without so many artifices that CHRIST IESVS hauing shed his blood for vs had represented to vs this effusion by giuing vs two distinct signes of his Body and his Blood and that he had bin pleased to giue to these two signes the names of the thing it self and that these sacred Symbols were pledges and securities of our partaking the fruite of his death and that we were nourished spiritually by the virtue of his Body and Blood after hauing strayned so hard to proue that the signes receaue the name of the thing it self and that for this reason the signe of the Body may be call'd the Body the whole frame of this Doctrine did oblige them naturally to settle and rest there And to render these signes efficatious it would serue sufficiently to haue the grace of our Redemption annexed to them or rather according to their principles that it were confirmed to vs in them They needed not to haue troubled themselues so much as they haue done to gett vs to conceaue that we receaue the very Body of our Sauiour to this end only viz to assure vs that we partake of the Grace of his Death These Pretended-Reformers did content themselues with hauing in the water of Baptisme a signe of the Blood which cleanseth vs and they neuer thought of saying that we receaue the Substance it self of our Sauiour's Blood to ascertaine us that the virtue thereof is therein diffused vpon vs. If they had argued and concluded so in the matter of the Eucharist their Doctrine would haue bin easier and lesse incombered with Contradictions But they who inuent and innouate can not say all they haue a minde to they encounter apparent verities and establish'd maximes which disapoint them and oblige them to restrayne their own conceptions The Arians would haue wisht not to haue bin obliged to qualify our Sauiour with the name of God and his only Sonne The Nestorians did admit but with great constraint a kinde of Unity of Persons in CHRIST JESVS which we finde in their writings The Pelagians who denyed Originall sin would as willingly haue reiected the ministring the Sacramēt of Baptisme to Infants in order to the remission of sin by which meanes they would haue bin deliuered from that argument the Catholiques drew from this practise to proue Originall sin But as I come from obseruing they who finde a thing firmely established haue not the boldnes or rather impudence to ouerthrow all at once Let the Caluinists auowe ingenuously the truth they would haue bin very willing to haue acknowleged in the Eucharist the Body of IESVS-CHRIST meerly Figuratiuely and the partaking only of his spirit in effect setting a side those big words of partaking of his proper Substance and many others which import a Reall Presence and doe but intricate perplexe them It would haue suted better to their mindes not to haue confessed any other Communion with CHRIST JESVS in the Lord's-Supper then such an one as is imparted in Preaching the Word and in Baptisme without telling vs as they doe that in the Eucharist CHRIST is receaued Intierly and elsewhere only in Part. But though this was their wish and inclination yet the powerfulnes of the termes resisted their profession of it our Sauiour hauing affirmed so positiuely of the Eucharist This is my Body This is my Blood which he never said of any other thing nor in any other occasion And what appearence of rendring that common to all the actions of a Christian which his expresse word hath annexed specially to one particular Sacrament Besides the whole order of the diuine counsels the connexion of the holy mysteries of the doctrine and intention of CHRIST IESVS in his last supper the words themselues which he vsed and the impression they naturally make in the minds of the faithfull all these suggest nothing but images and notions of Reality and for this reason our Aduersaries haue bin faine to finde out some words the sound whereof at least might raise some confused idea of this Reality When a man fastens himself either intirely vnto Faith as the Catholiques doe or absolutely rest on humane Reason as the Infidels doe one may establish firme consequences and make as it were an vniforme draught or designe of Doctrine but when one will frame a compound of them both together one is driuen to say somewhat more then he would willingly doe and in the persuite to fall into opinions the apparent Contradictions whereof manifestly discouer their Falsities This is the case of the Pretended-Reformers and God hath permitted their deluding themselues in this manner to facilitate their returne to the Vnity of the Catholique doctrine For since their own experience conuinceth them that they must speake as we doe to speake the language of truth ought they not to iudge they must thinke as we doe to vnderstand it right If they obserue in their own beleefe some things that can haue no sense but in ours is not this sufficient to conuince them that the Truth is not intire compleate but in our Church And those loose parts of Catholique doctrine which are scattered here and there in their Catechisme but would as one may say faine be reunited to their whole body ought not they perswade them to seeke in the Com̄union of the Church the full intire explication of the Mysterie of the Eucharist They would certainly be brought to it did not humane reasonings trouble perplex their Faith which is too much adhering to their senses But now after hauing represented to them what benefit they may draw from the exposition of their Doctrine let vs proceed and end the explaining of our own Since it was convenient as hath bin obserued before that our senses should discerne nothing in this mystery of Faith it was requisit there should be no alteratiō as to their obiect in the Bread Wine of the Eucharist Whereupon by reason that the same species continue as our obiect and we feele the same effects in the Sacrament as were sensible before the Consecration we ought not to wonder if some times and in some certain sense it is express'd by the
of the part they had in that oblation so CHRIST IESVS hauing made himself our Offering did intend we should really eate the flesh of this Sacrifice to the end this actual communication of that adorable flesh should remayne a perpetual testimony to euery one of vs in particular that it was for our sakes he assumed and for vs he sacrificed his mortal flesh and blood God had forbiden the Iews to eate of the Sacrifice which was à Sin-Offering with intent to teach them that true expiation of crimes was not obteyned in the Law nor by the blood of beasts All the poeple stood as it were interdicted by this restraint not being capable to partake actually of the remission of sinns Now for the quite contrary reason it was requisit that the Body of our Sauiour the true Host offer'd vp for sin should be eaten by the faithful in order to the teaching them by this true eating that the forgiuenes of sinns was accomplished in the New Testament God did likewise forbid the people of the Iews the eating of blood and one of the reasons of this restraynt was that the blood is giuen for the expiation of our soules Quite contrary our Sauiour proposeth the drinking of his Blood because it is shed for the remission of sinns So that the eating of the Flesh drinking the Blood of the Sonne of God at the holy table is as Reall as Grace the expiation of sinns and the participation of the Sacrifice of CHRIST IESVS is actual and effectiue in the New Alliance Notwithstanding which truth by reason he intended to exercise our Faith in this Mystery and at the same time to deliuer vs from the horror of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood in their own kinds it was fit and convenient to exhibite them unto us couered under an other species But if these considerations did oblige him to ordaine our eating the Flesh of our Offring in a different manner from that of the Iews yet he ought not in that respect to depriue vs of the Reality and the Substance of it It is apparent therefore that to accomplish the figures of the old Law and to putt vs in actual possession of that Victime offred for our sinns CHRIST IESVS did designe the giving vs Realy truly his Body and Blood which point is so euident that our Aduersaries themselues desire we should be perswaded they haue the same beleefe as we professe since they doe continually presse vrge to vs their not denying the true and Real participation of the Body and Blood of CHRIST in the Eucharist which pretence of theirs we will examine in the sequent discourse where we conceave it will be proper to expose their sentiments after hauing fully explicated the beleefe of the Church In the meane tyme we may conclude that if the faire and natural signification of the words vsed by the sonne of God compelleth them to graunt that his expresse intention was to giue Really his Flesh when he said This is my body they ought not to wonder that we can not consent to the vnderstanding these words as spoken meerly in a figuratiue sense And surely the sonne of God who was so carefull to explaine to his Apostles what he taught vnder the vailes of parables and figures hauing said nothing in this point to explaine himself further seemes cleerly to haue left these words in their natural signification I know that our Aduersaries pretend that the matter it self explains sufficiently the meaning because say they it is cleer that what he exposeth is but Bread and Wyne but the cloude of this argument vanisheth when we reflect that he who speaketh is of an Authority which ought to ouerrule our senses hath an Omnipotēce transcending all nature It is no harder for the sonne of God to effect his body's presence in the Eucharist saying This is my body then to cure a woman of her infirmity by saying Woman thou art freed from thy infirmity or to preserue the Centurion's sonne by saying Thy sonne liueth or in fine to effect the forgiuenes of the sinns of the bed-rid paralytique by uttering only Thy sinns are forgiuen thee We hauing therefore no reason to trouble our selues how CHRIST will effect what he saith we fix our beleefe precisely on his words He who makes whatsoeuer he willeth by his words effecteth whatsoeuer he saith and it was much easier for the sonne of God to force the laws of nature to verify his word then it is for vs to conforme our vnderstandings vnto such violent strayn'd interpretations as destroy all the laws of discourse The laws of language and discourse tell vs that the signe which naturally representeth doth very often take the name of the thing it self because it is natural to it to recall the idea or image of it into the mind The same hapens to signes by institution but then it is vpon condition that they be receiued and acknowledged for signes and that the parties be accustomed to them But that in instituting a signe which of it self hath no rapport to the thing as for example a peece of bread to signify the body of a man one should giue it that name without explaining of it and before agreement made concerning it as JESVS-CHRIST our Lord did in the last supper is a thing vnhear'd of and whereof we finde no example in holy scripture and I might say none in humane language Whereupon the Pretending Reformers themselues doe not so fixe vpon the figuratiue sense which they ascribe to the words of CHRIST JESVS as not to acknowledge at the same time that when he vttered those words he intended to giue vs Truly his Body and his Blood After hauing proposed the sense of the Church touching these words This is my body it is fitt to exhibite her perswasion concerning the words which CHRIST did adioyne vnto them Doe this in remembrance of me It is euident that the intention of the sonne of God was to oblige vs by these words vnto a retention and remembrance of the death he had suffered for our redemption and S. Paul concludeth out of these very words that we announce the death of our Lord in this mystery we must not then perswade our selues that this remembrance of the death of our Lord excludeth the Reall presence of his Body but quite contrary if we consider rightly what we haue here explicated we shall discerne cleerly that this Commemoration is grounded vpon the Reall presence for in the same manner as the Iews eating of the Peace-Offerings did reflect that they had bin offer'd vp for them so we eating the Flesh of CHRIST JESVS our Victime are bound to remember that he suffered death for vs. It is therefore the very same Flesh eaten by the faithfull which not only reuiueth in vs the memory of his immolation but doth besides confirme to vs that verity And we are so farr from hauing reason to say that
word doth not allow vs any doubt of it Our Aduersaries did well discerne that simple figures and bare signes of the Body and Blood would not satisfy Christians vsed accustomed to the Grace and Goodnesse of a God who giues himself so Really to vs. So that vpon this ground they seeke to decline the being taxed with their denying a Substantiall and Reall participation of IESVS-CHRIST in the Communion They affirme with vs that he makes vs partakers of his proper Substance They say that he feedeth vs with the Substance of his Body and his Blood and conceauing that his shewing vs by some signe that we did partake of his Sacrifice would not be sufficient they declare expressely that the Body of our Sauiour which is giuen vs in the Communion doth ascertaine vs of it These words are so important as we will presently examine them Now then we see the Body and Blood of CHRIST present in our Mysteries by the grant of the Caluinists for what is communicated according to the proper Substance of it must needs be Really present True it is that they explaine this Communication saying it is effected by the Spirit and by Faith but it is also certain that they will haue it to be Reall and because it is not possible to render this intelligible that a Body communicated to vs only in Spirit by Faith should be imparted to vs Really and in its proper Substance they haue not bin able to remain fix'd in both parts of a Doctrine of such a Contradiction and so they haue bin forced to grant two things which the Catholique Church teacheth The first is that CHRIST IESVS is giuen vs in the Eucharist in such a manner as doth not sute either with Baptisme or Preaching the Gospel but is peculiarly proper to this Mysterie We shall discerne presently the consequence of this principle but lett vs first consider how it is allowed granted by the Pretended-Reformers And in this point I will not alledge the testimony of any particular Authour but the very words of the Catechisme in that place where it explicateh what relateth to the Lord's-Supper It pronounceth in expresse termes not only that CHRIST IESVS is giuen vs Really and truly in the Sacrament and in his own Substance but being asked the question what aduantage we haue by the communication in the Supper aboue that in Baptisme or Preaching they answer although he be truly communicated to vs by Baptisme and by the Gospel yet in them it is but Partly and not Entirely From whence it followes that in the Lord's-Supper they teach he is not giuen vs Partly but Compleatly There is an extreame difference between receauing in Part and receauing Plenarily So that if we partake of JESVS-CHRIST in all other com̄unications of him but in Part and that in the Lord's Supper singly we receaue him Entirely it followeth euen by the Confession of our Aduersaries that we must seeke in the Communion a participation special and peculiar to this mystery which can not appertaine to Baptisme or Preaching and at the same time it followes also that this partaking is not annexed vnto Faith since our Faith spreading extending it self through all the acts of Christianity doth exist and operate in the Preaching of the word and in Baptisme as well as the Lord's-Supper And indeed it is to be obserued that notwithstanding all the earnestnesse the Pretending-Reformers haue expressed to render Baptisme and Preaching equal to the Eucharist vpon this account that CHRIST JESVS is truly com̄unicated to vs by them they neuer durst venture to assert in their Catechismes that CHRIST was giuen vs in his proper Substance either in Baptisme or in Preaching of the Gospel as they haue affirm'd it of the Eucharist So that they haue bin conuinced they could not decline the ascribing to the Lord's Supper such a manner of possessing CHRIST as is peculiar to this Sacrament and that our Faith which is common to all the actions of a Christian could not be that distinct singular manner Now this singular manner of possessing CHRIST IESVS in the Eucharist must needs be Reall since it giueth to the beleeuer the very Substance of the Body and Blood of our Sauiour which is not done by Faith and this is what the Catholique Church holds teacheth The second point granted by the Pretending Reformers is drawn from the Article following immediately what I haue allready cited out of their Catechisme which is this that the Body of our Sauiour in regard it was once offer'd in Sacrifice to reconcile vs vnto God is now giuen vs to assure vs that we partake of that reconciliation If these words haue any meaning in them if they are not an empty sound only a meere vaine amusement they must needs suggest to our vnderstanding that CHRIST JESVS doth not giue vs a simple signe or symbole but his proper Body to assure vs that we partake of his Sacrifice and the Reconciliation of Mankind If then the receauing of the Body of our Sauiour assureth vs of our participation of the fruite of his Death it followes of necessity that this partaking of the fruite must be a distinct thing from the receauing of his Body because the one is the pledge and security for the other from which supposal aduancing further I say that if our Aduersaries are forced to distinguish in the Lord's-Supper the partaking of the Body of our Sauiour from the hauing part in the fruite and grace of his Sacrifice they ought likewise to distinguish the participation of that Diuine Body from all that participation thereof which is conferr'd Spiritually and by Faith for this last partaking namely by Faith will neuer afford them two distinct actions by one of which they receaue the Body of our Sauiour and by the other the fruite of his Sacrifice no body being able to conceaue what difference there is between partaking by Faith of the Body of our Sauiour partaking by Faith of the fruite of his Death They must therefore yeald that besides the Communion by which we partake Spiritually of the Body of our Sauiour and of his spirit coniointly in the receauing the fruite of his Death there is yet an other Reall Comunion of the Body of the same Sauiour which is a secure pledge to vs that the other namely the benefit of his death is assured to vs if we doe not frustrate the effects of so great a grace by our own opposite dispositions This consequence is necessarily included in the principles to which they agree nor can they euer be able to explicate this verity in any solide way vnlesse they returne to the sense of the Catholique Church Who can choose but admire in this point the power of Truth All that is consequent to the principles granted by our Aduersaries is cleerly vnderstood in the sense of the Church euen the least instructed Catholiques easily conceaue that in the Eucharist there is a Com̄uniō
same name Neuerthelesse our Faith being attentiue to his word who effecteth what euer he pleaseth in heauen and on earth doth acknowledg in this case no other Substance remaining but that which is designed by the same word viz the proper Body and Blood of CHRIST IESVS into which the Bread and the Wine are changed which is what we terme TRANSVBSTANTIATION And notwithstanding this yet the Reality which the Eucharist contains in regard of the interiour part is no impediment to the being a Signe in respect of what it retains of exteriour and sensible but yet a Signe of such a nature as is so farre from excluding a Reality as it carieth it of necessity along with it since in effect this speech This is my Body being pronounced vpon the matter CHRIST IESVS hath chosen is an assured signe that he is Present and although the matters seeme to our senses to remayne the same yet our spirit iudgeth otherwise of them then it would doe if a superiour Authority did not interuene so that although those species and a certaine sequence of naturall impressions which are made on our bodies are vsed to suggest to vs the Substance of Bread Wine yet in this case his Authority whome we beleeue intirely preuailes so much vpon vs that the same species begin to designe to vs an other Substance for we beleeue CHRIST who sayth that which we take and that which we eate is his Body and such is the efficacy of his word as it keeps vs from ascribing to the Substance of Bread these exteriour appearances and moueth vs to referr them to the Body of CHRIST being present vnder them so that the presence of so Adorable an obiect being once ascertain'd to vs by this signe we make no question of offring to it our Adorations I doe not enter into the point of Adoration by reason that the most learned and sober of our Aduersaries haue long since granted vs that the presence of CHRIST IESVS in the Eucharist ought to impose Adoration vpon those who are of that perswasion In fine being once conuinced that the omnipotent words of the sonne of God effect whatsoeuer they pronounce we beleeue vpon good grounds that in the last Supper they produced their effect as soone as they were vttered and vpon a necessary consequence we acknowledg the Reall presence of the Body before our receauing it These preceeding points being supposed the Sacrifice which we assert and maintain in the Eucharist retayns no longer any particular difficulty We haue obserued two actions in this Mystery which cease not to be distinct although the one relateth to the other the first is the Consecration by which the Bread and Wine are changed into the Body and Blood the second is the Eating by which we communicate and partake of them In the Consecration the Body and Blood are mystically separated by reason that CHRIST IESVS said seuerally This is my Body This is my Blood the which includeth a liuely and effectuall representation of the violent death he suffered And so the sonne of God is sett vpon the holy table by vertue of those words couered with signes that represent his death This is what is effected by Consecration and this Religious act carieth with it the protestation of the Soueragnity of God by reason that CHRIST IESVS being present reneweth and in some sort perpetuates the memory of his obedience euen to the death of the Crosse so that indeed there is nothing wanting here towards the rendring it a True Sacrifice Without all question this Religious act as it is distinct from that of the Communion must needs be of it self acceptable to God and must inuite him to looke vpon vs with a more fauorable and propitious eye by reason it presenteth to his sight the voluntary death which his wellbeloued sonne hath suffer'd for sinners or rather replaceth before his eyes euen his own sonne vnder the signes of that death whereby he hath bin appeased and reconciled to Man All Christians confesse that the single presēce of CHRIST IESVS is a most powerfull manner of Intercession before God for all mankind according to this saying of the Apostle CHRIST IESVS presenteth himself and appeareth for vs before the face of God and thereupon we beleeue that CHRIST IESVS being present vpon the holy table in this figure of death intercedeth for vs and representeth continually to his Father the death he hath suffered for his Church It is in this sense we affirme that IESVS-CHRIST offereth himself for vs to God in the Eucharist and in this manner it is we conceaue that this Oblation inuiteth God to become more fauorable and propitious to vs and for this reason we call it Propitiatorie When we reflect vpon what CHRIST IESVS worketh in this mystery and when we looke vpon him by our Faith as actually present vpon the holy table with the signes of death we ioine our selues to him in that estate and we present him to God as our only Victime and as our sole Propitiator by the merit of his Blood protesting that we haue nothing to offer vnto God but IESVS-CHRIST and the infinite merit of his death We consecrate all our prayers by this Diuine Oblation and by our presenting CHRIST IESVS to God we are taught to offer vp our selues at the same time to the Diuine Maiesty in him and by him as liuing Sacrifices Such is the Sacrifice of Christians and infinitely differing from that which was practised in the Law being a Spirituall Sacrifice worthy of the New Couenant wherein the presence of the Victime is not perceaued but by Faith where the word of God is the instrument that separateth Mystically the Body the Blood and cōsequently where the Blood is shed but Mystically and where death interueneth but by Representation and yet a most Reall True Sacrifice for this reason that CHRIST JESVS is truly contained and presented to God in it vnder this figure of death and therefore a Sacrifice also of Commemoration which is so farre though obiected from parting loosening vs from our application to the Sacrifice of the Crosse as it fixeth vs the faster by all its circūstances vnto it since it doth not only relate intirely vnto it but in effect it hath neither being nor subsistance but by this relation from whence it deriueth all the virtue it contains This is the expresse Doctrine of the Catholique Church in the Councel of Trent which teacheth that this Sacrifice is instituted only to the intent of representing that which was once perfected vpon the Crosse and to preserue the Memory of it vnto the end of all ages and apply vnto vs that sauing virtue for the forgiuenes of sinns which we dayly commit Wherefore so farre we are from beleeving that somewhat is wanting to the Sacrifice of the Crosse as quite contrary the Church holds that it was so perfect and so fully sufficient as all which followes it is but ordain'd in order to the