the whole Substance of Bread is wanting But Durandus calls your Sentiment holding Bread remains after Consecration the Doctrin of profane Novelty Suarez and Vasquez treat Durandus as one Divine doth anothers Opinion But you might have well omitted their names for one that is moderately learn'd in Divinity knows how copiously they both shew from Scripture and Fathers the Roman Catholic Doctrin Occham You have not faithfully delivered this Divine's Authority who thus answers to the second Query I say that in the Sacrament is true Transubstantiation Then he delivers four manners of understanding this Transubstantiation 1. That the Bread may remain with the Body 2. That the Substance of the Bread may suddenly be removed away 3. That it may return to Matter the common subject of all or receive some other Form. 4. That it may be reduced to nothing He admits all four as possible The first manner he prefers in these words which are your Objection The first manner may be held because it is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture and is more reasonable and easier than the other three manners These are Scholastic Opinions And therefore this Divine leaving them adheres to the true sense of Transubstantiation in these following words Yet because we find extant the Churches determination contrary to this exposition and all Doctors universally hold that the substance of Bread remains not there in the Sacrament Therefore I also hold that the substance of Bread remains not but the species of Bread and with this outward shape of Bread coexistent the Body of Christ Will you acknowledge what this Divine holds and professes Gabriel Biel. You have corrupted Biel. These are his words Although it be expresly delivered in Scripture that the Body of Christ is truly contain'd under the species of Bread yet we find not express in the Canon of the Scripture how the Body of Christ is there whether by conversion of some thing into himself or whether without conversion the Body begins to be with the Bread the substance and accidents of Bread remaining This Author is so far from speaking what you force him to say as to any thing expressed in Scripture a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after consecration that he proves we ought to believe the contrary sense contained in Scripture And this upon two accounts 1. Although the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament be not in this Divine's opinion evidently couch'd yet it is sufficiently particularized in the Canon of the Scripture For if this which was Bread is Christ's Body according to our Saviour's words this is my Body and Christ's true Body be there expresly delivered in Scripture as Biel affirms it necessarily folows that the Substance of Bread is changed For how can this which was Bread be Christ's true Body and not lose its own substance 2. He expounds the Scripture after this same manner from the Lateran Council St. Austin St. Ambrose and then concludes From these and many other authorities of Saints 't is held that the Body of Christ is in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation of the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ Does this favour the Protestants You named but expressed not Melchior Canus's authority who says the Body and Blood of Christ was offered in the Sacrifice and his proof is the evident Testimony of St. Luke This I think prejudices us not in the least Petrus Ab Alliaco You have misrepresented Ab Alliaco who disputing upon meer possibilities proposes among others two Questions First Whether it is not possible that the Body of Christ may remain united to the substance of Bread in the Sacrament Secondly Whether the substance of Bread may not be suddenly removed away by divine power the accidents only remaining with Christ's Body This Divine thinks neither impossible and prefers the first as more rational and conformable to Scriptures These are his words 'T is possible the Body of Christ may assume the substance of Bread and this manner is not repugnant to reason or to the authority of Scripture it is more easie and more rational than that manner which pretends the substance of Bread leaves the accidents Now for the second It is not impossible to God that the substance of Bread may be suddenly elsewhere convey'd the species remaining in the place coexistent to the Body of Christ this manner would not be so rational as the first All this is upon possibilities But not to enlarge in Scholastic Opinions when matters of Faith are debated Cannot I dispute of what is possible but you will necessarily deduce I deny the being of what is actually present If I should say 't is possible God may create another World and People it with another Generation of Creatures can you deduce from this that there is no necessity of admitting any Men alive at this present in the whole Universe Cajetan 'T is true writ the Scripture did not evidently enforce the Roman Catholic Tenet Great Wits speak sometimes without consideration Yet the Good Cardinal retracted afterwards his Error in these words We can prove Christ's real presence from the words of the Gospel And thus in some manner amended as Soto remarks what was before amiss You instance the words you object out of Cajetan in the Roman Edition are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. I Answer a worthy remark to demonstrate the vigilancy of the Roman See was not wanting to blot out Innovation in its very first rise and appearance Bishop Fisher that glorious Martyr of the Church of Rome confesseth we cannot prove from the bare words of Scripture that Priests consecrate the true Body and Blood of Christ I shall not dispute whether this concern our present Controversie or not but I 'le beg you 'll take the following Explication of the Pious Bishop that is continues the holy Martyr in the same place not because this thing is now doubtful but because the certainty of this Doctrin cannot be gathered so strongly from the bare words of the Gospel as from the Father's Interpretation together with the continued practice of so long a time surviving in succeeding Posterity The blessed Bishop gives us this reason why he provoked to the Fathers lest any one should says he pertinaciously adhere to the pure words of Scripture despising Fathers Authorities as Luther did If this will not suffice I 'le translate when you require it the Fourth Chapter of this same Book wherein Bishop Fisher proves the Bread changed into Christ's Body from the three Evangelists And I 'le rank your Objections collected from Luther's Instances and Oecolampadius's Objections on one Page and on the opposite place Bishop Fisher's Solutions to them both in vindication of the Roman Catholic Assertion I finish this Scholastic Disceptation with this Querie Whether you would not think it weakness in
in the Blood of the Grape Again speaking to Eranistes he pursues with another Simile Jesus called his Body Bread and his Flesh Wheat But in the institution of the Sacrament he called Bread his Body and Wine his Blood Though naturally the Body is called the Body and Blood is called Blood but our Saviour changing the Names gave to his Body the Name of Symbol and to the Symbol or Sign the Name of his Body Eranistes urges to know the cause of this change of Names Orthodoxus answers Nothing more easie to the Faithful For he would have those who partake of the Divine Mysteries not to attend to the nature of things which are seen but by the change of Names to believe the change which is made by Grace for he who called that which by nature is a Body Wheat and Bread and again called himself the Vine he honoured the Symbol with the name of his Body and Blood not changing nature but adding Grace to nature This is a full view of the matter in debate We ought to reflect that as Theodoretus compares here Scriptural passages wherein they resemble one another and consequently acknowledges the Similitude of the already mention'd Expressions So also was he not ignorant of their differences And therefore he said Jesus changed the Names that by their change the Faithful might believe that alteration which Grace effected The change of names is acknowledged to proceed from a change made in the Sacrament For he obliges the Faithful to believe a change which is made not in the nature of things which are seen for the natural Signs or outward appearances remain it must be then in some inward thing not seen or Substance of the Symbol effected by Grace or the Word of God. This in another place he professes in these Words Christ gave his pretious Body not only to the Eleven Apostles but also to the Traytor Judas This cannot be properly Grace added to Nature for Judas received his own condemnation It must be then the Body of Christ made by Grace of the Substance of Bread and added to the Nature or remaining appearance of the Signs which was given to the Traytor Paragraph II. Upon the continuation of the same Discourse in the Second Dialogue ORthod What are those Symbols which the Priest offers to God Eranist They are Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Orthod Of the true Body Eranist Of the true Body Orthod Very right Eranist Very well Orthod If these Divine Mysteries represent the true Body the true Body of Christ is not changed into the Divinity Eranistes perceiving himself caught cunningly retorts the Argument in the like manner How do you call these Symbols after consecration Orthod The Body and Blood of Christ Eranist Do you believe you receive the Body and Blood of Christ Orthod I do believe Eranist Therefore as the Symbols of our Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation are changed and become another thing so the Body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the Divine Substance If Orthodoxus had not believed that the Symbols were truly changed in Substance after consecration how could Eranistes have deduced the change of the Human Nature into the Divine Substance He could not argue this out of his own principle For admitting no Body of Christ in Heaven how could he pretend a real Body of Christ in the Sacrament whence the Protestant Centuriators say Theodoretus dangerously affirms that the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are changed and become another thing Orthodoxus answers you are caught in your own net because the Mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance and may be seen and handled even as before As Bread is properly said to have Substance and Nature which are neither seen nor handled so likewise the Accidents of Bread may be said though not so commonly to have their own Nature and Substance which may be seen and handled Whence that of St. Austin What is not a Substance is nothing at all 'T is in this sense Orthodoxus holds the substance of the Symbols remains And lest we should doubt what this substance is he tells us 't is Figure and Appearance Nor is this a constrained interpretation For what more usual when we have uttered some word either harsh in expression or difficult to be understood than forthwith to add another softer in Language and more obvious to the Hearer Thus Theodoretus saying They remain in their former substance adds that is they remain in their former Figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before Nor are these latter Expressions referable to Substance strictly taken for the inward thing because this properly is neither seen nor handled Now if you ask what these Symbols are interiorly Theodoretus confesses they are what they were made Christ's Body And they are believed and adored as being those very things which they are believed Which Words if the Bread be not substantially changed into Christ's Body teach plain Idolatry Nor could Orthodoxus say the interiour Substance of the Symbols was not changed in his own Opinion for this he had already granted in these Words They are changed and become after consecration another thing Orthodoxus pretends indeed that he caught his Adversary in his own Net. But this was not because Eranistes believed the Substance of the Symbols was not changed into Christ's Body for he thought Christ's Body was no where extant How then was he caught in his own Net He was caught in his own Net because these Mystical Symbols were not changed in appearance for after consecration they may be seen and handled and they were Symbols still of Christ's true Body which Eranistes had formerly granted and therefore there was a true Body of Christ and so the Body of Christ was not changed into the Divinity as Orthodoxus had argued Thus Eranistes was caught in his own Net. Nor ought Theodoretus to be censured for Singularity in giving the Name of Nature and Substance to accidental Beings For St. Hilary gives the same to Proprieties Saying That the Flames in the Babilonian Furnace lost their Nature though the Substance of the Fire remained Innocent the Third that Venerable Pope and Father of the Church under whom was defined the Doctrin of Transubstantiation frankly concedes the Natural Proprieties of Bread remain ut paneitas And Cardinal Pole another great Vindicator of the same Tenet says Though there be only Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament notwithstanding the Nature of the Wine may be tasted I would have you likewise argue that these Authors are against Transubstantiation Article VIII Upon Gelasius the Pope THESE Words of Gelasius The Substance of Bread and Wine doth not cease to be are already satisfied by what I
Prince and Leader in whom without our envy you may triumph and glory How often have you been incredulous with the Capharnaits saying How can he give us his Flesh How often with the unfaithfull Disciples murmured who can endure this Doctrin A second attempt was as St. Paul delivers made by the Corinthians who not distinguishing the Body of our Lord in the Sacrament from Bread and Wine became incredulous Not believing Not believing what St. Austin replies the true Body of Christ to be contain'd in the Eucharist A third Essay must be acknowledged in the Simonits Menandrians Gnostics and Marcionists who placing in Christ only a Phantasm indirectly rejected the verity of Christ's true Body and Blood in the Sacrament A fourth Opposition was from some of the Arians who thirsting after Spiritual Grace were not solicitous for any Corporal Presence as we learn from St. Cyril and St. Gregory Nazianzen In the Year 740. we read of certain Heretics meeting together for the taking away of Images who gave this reason That our Lord having left no Image of himself but Bread which is the Image of his Body we ought to make no other Image of our Lord. This Conventicle which then was esteemed Heretical in the Christian World you mention make Orthodox and oppose it to the Doctrin of Transubstantiation You are here again mistaken for there was no Sect of Men who professed at this time in any place of the World your Opinion against Transubstantiation For these Heretics taking the word Image interiourly for the Substance it self said that as our Saviour deified Flesh which suffered for man's redemption so constituting the Eucharistic Bread not a false Image of his natural Flesh he did ordain it should be made the Priest mediating by the sanctification of the Holy Ghost his Divine Body These Words as containing the Roman Belief were approved in the Nicene Synod Nor did the Writers of the Roman Church condemning their Heresie which pulled down and destroyed Images charge them with any disbelief of the real Presence or Transubstantiation These Iconoclast Heretics indiscreetly naming the Bread the Image of the Body of Christ gave probably occasion to the following Writers to dispute how it was an Image Amongst whom Scotus Erigena towards the end of the Eight or beginning of the Ninth Century went so far that he said 't was only an Image of the Body Scarce had he broach'd this new Doctrin but he was straight censured by the Writers of those Times Hincmarus accused him that he called the Sacrament a remembrance only of the true Body and Blood of Christ Prudentius Bishop of Troy and Ebbo Prelat of Grenoble confuted the same Erigena Nor did this Scotus decline the sinister Opinion of Pope Nicholas in his Letter to Charles the Bald Scotus's great Patron and Friend Yet we never read that Scotus ever reply'd in defence of his Error and so seem'd in some manner to retract what before he had imprudently spoken His Followers were but few and those too taught this Error underhand so fearfully that no body could accuse them of open Heresie or convince them not to be Catholics Thus this Infant Embrio of Error covered in the Shell of darkness was at length hatch'd and brought forth by Berengarius in the twelfth Age. Berengarius was born at Tours in France After he had finished the ordinary courses of Studies he taught Grammar and Philosophy Then he was made Treasurer in St. Martin's Church About the Year 1149 he went for Anger 's where he was kindly entertained and constituted by Bruno the Arch Bishop his Archdeacon Here he began to sow several Errors Viz. That Children were not to be baptized that Marriage might be dissolved that our Saviour could not enter in where his Disciples were The Door 's shut as we learn from Guitmundus Theoduinus and St. Anselm He added a fourth Error which is to our present purpose That the consecrated Bread was only a Figure of Christ's Body Which that he might the better maintain he kept poor Boys to School educating them in all manner of Learning that so by mony and interest he might have many at his command But alas all in vain for this Error no sooner was vented but it was opposed by many Learned Writers Among these were St. Lanfrancus St. Anselm Guitmundus Durandus Algerus Adelmannus Hugo Lingonensis Humbertus Petrus Cluniacensis Euthymius Hugo Victorinus Petrus Lombardus And the same Berengarius more than once abjured his Error which during his life was nine times condemned in nine several Councils The first at Rome under Leo the Ninth The Second at Vercells The Third in the Convent of Brion according to the desires of Henry Duke of Normandy to whom he fled for protection The Fourth at Paris The Fisth at Tours by order from Pope Victor The Sixth at Rome under Nicholas the Second The Seventh at Poictous in France The Eighth at Rome under Gregory the Seventh The Ninth at Bourdeaux under Hugo Bien Bishop and Legat of the See Apostolic in France This we have from the Writers of those times cited in Baronius The last abjuration of this Heresie made by Berengarius was real For after ten years Penance he died peaceably in the Bosom of the Church This we have from William of Malemsbury Mathew Paris Vincentius Bellovacensis and what is most convincing we read in an Old Manuscript in St. Martin's at Tours these Words Obiit Magister Berengarius Grammaticus fidelis et vere Catholicus An. Dom. 1186. Many of those whom he had perverted imitated his pious return to the Church and his Penance Others more unfortunate propogated this Figurative Exposition and Exclusion of Christ's Body in the Sacrament after the best manner Industry could invent and Craft execute Hence you may gather what diligence the Enemy of Mankind used how often he was forced to repeat almost the same Stratagems before the fearful Error durst publickly appear or was able to stand in any corner of Christendom Pray now compare if you please the rise of Transubstantiation with the beginning of the opposite contradiction and acknowledge without prejudice or partiality which of the two ought to be sincerely embraced Whether will you believe Nine several Councils or Berengarius an Apostate who yet afterwards recanted Whether the Holy Fathers who vindicated this Catholic Doctrin St. Austin St. Hilary St. Ambrose St. Cyril St. Justin St. Ignatius Martyr or the Marcionits Menandrians Simonits all Heretics who deny the Substantial Body of Christ Whether lastly you believe St. Paul or the Erring Corinthians St. John or the incredulous Jews our Blessed Saviour or the Contradicting Calvinists I leave you to your own choice whilst I pursue your third Principle CHAP. III. Examen of your Solution given to Mr. Arnauld 's Demonstration MR. Arnauld a learned man in France pretended very rightly that it was impossible
not confess that the Eucharist is that Flesh which suffered for our sins The Flesh which suffered for us and rose again was it a Figure or was it true Flesh If I should affirm that the Language of the Second Century spoke after the same manner and told us that they were taught the Eucharist was not common Bread but was the Flesh of our Saviour made Man and Jesus incarnate would you not reply it was a Roman Invention And yet St. Justin the Martyr leaves this convincing Testimony We do not receive these things as common Bread or common Drink But as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so are we taught that this Food by which chang'd by digestion in our Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Flesh and Blood are nourish'd Eucharistated or transformed by the prayer of this Divine Word is the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnate Jesus If for all this you should reply that the Eucharistic Food is onely figuratively the Flesh and Blood of Christ then might the Reader likewise aver Christ being incarnate had onely figuratively both Flesh and Blood. For 't is more to say the blessed Bread is the Flesh and Blood of Incarnate Jesus because this Speech implies a substantial change than to say Jesus being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood because this Speech can signifie no more than a substantial Union And to say less in either is to diminish and change the Martyr's Sense If I should instance the Third Age was a faithful Imitator of the precedent so dividing between the Divine Mystery and the Grace of the Mystery that the Body of Man received the Body and Blood of Christ and the Soul was replenished with the Grace of Faith or effect of the Sacrament would you not be surprized at the acknowledgment of what was given in Communion And yet Tertullian furnishes us with a sufficient manifestation of this Truth Saying Our Flesh is sed with the Body and Blood of Christ that our Soul may be filled with God. Again These words Our Flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be deluded in an eating by Faith because the Body of Man is incapable of an act of Faith. If I should continue the Fathers of the Fourth Century when the Church was beautified and enriched with an innumerable Offspring of Pious and Learned Children If I should alledge how these worthy Champions of Christian Purity forbid Posterity to judge of the Sacrament by Tast and taught them the Body was given them under the Species of Bread and as Christ changed Water into Wine so did he Wine into his own Blood would you not swear this Language was unknown in those times And yet both the Greek and Latin Church conspire in this Doctrin Hearken to that Grecian Prelate St. Cyril of Jerusalem and acknowledge the plain truth of these words Do not judge the thing by Tast but by Faith. Under the species of Bread is given to thee the Body and under the species of Wine is given to thee the Blood. Christ formerly changed Water into Wine and is he not to be believed changing Wine into his Blood Nor are these words of the Learned Latin Bishop Gaudentius of less force Jesus giving to his Disciples Bread and Wine said this is my Body Let us believe it is what he said Truth is incapable of Error The Creator of all Nature and Lord who produces Bread from the Earth made again of this Bread because he can and promised his proper Body and because he did make Wine of Water of Wine he makes his Blood. I know there are several Expressions and Comparisons in the Fathers which only declare a spiritual change effected in the worthy Receiver But do not the foregoing Authorities prove something more a change not in the Receiver but in the thing received and this can be no less than a substantial one For when Catholics argue that as Christ changed Water into Wine so does he Bread into his Body Protestants readily deny the sequel because this would be to profess Transubstantiation If this reasoning of Catholics include a substantial change of the Bread into Christ's Body as you grant how comes it to pass that the very same words and very same reason in the Father's Writings must have quite another interpretation If the Fathers had design'd to have writ for Transubstantiation they could but have said what they do and you might still explicate them in a spiritual sense or wrested interpretation If I should urge on that I rightly profess the consecrated Bread transfigur'd and transelemented into the Body of Christ would you not exclaim these are as hard and mishapen words as that of Transubstantiation and yet many Fathers of this fourth Age after Christ use the same Expressions Witness this Language of St. Ambrose As often as we receive the Sacraments which by the Mystery of Prayer are transfigurated into Flesh and Blood witness this Speech of St. Gregory Nyssene I properly believe the Bread sanctified by the word of God to be changed into the Body of God the Word And this is effected the nature of what appears being transelemented by vertue of benediction into the Body of the word Christ I close up this Motive with the decision of the Synod in Egypt celebrated before the second Oecumenical Council to both which presided St. Cyril of Alexandria These Fathers composing a Creed inserted these words in the end of their Introduction This is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church in which the East and West agree Then immmediatly follows their Creed divided into many Articles What if their Seventh Article should decree the Flesh received in the Sacrament to be the very Flesh of Christ which made one Person and two Natures in one Son and not two Sons one of God Divine and another of the Blessed Virgin Human as Nestorius Heretically taught you could require nothing more for Transubstantiation And yet these are their words We do not receive in the Sacrament our Saviour's Flesh as common Flesh God forbid Nor again as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man or associated to the Word by unity of Dignity but as the true vivificative and proper Flesh of the Word himself truly the Flesh of him who for our sake was made and called the Son of Man. The Council admitting with Nestorius what was received to be true Flesh defines against the Heretic who pretended our Saviour as he was the Son of the Virgin Mary had not only a Nature but likewise a Human Person and so constituted two Persons in Christ that we do not receive this as common Flesh or the Flesh of an ordinary Person Secondly The Council adds Nor as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man or associated to the Word by the unity of Dignity which excluded that accidental Union by which the Nestorians joyned together two Persons that
scandalized that I told you ye shall eat my Flesh and drink my Blood ye shall not eat it as ye imagine in the shape you see it bruzing cutting digesting my Flesh I Speak of a Sacrament when I commend the eating of my Body 'T is this Sacrament you shall tast touch and see in outward appearance The Spiritual intelligence by Faith will discovering there my Body remaining invisibly vivify you What more conformable to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation This I shall endeavour to manifest in examining the sense of these two Propositions which contain the force of your Argument 1. Ye must understand spiritually what I have said 2. Ye are not to eat the Body which ye see The Word Spiritually excluding the Carnal sense of the Capharnaits establishes a miraculous or a supernatural understanding So when St. Paul says Isaac was born according to the Spirit He did not deny by this that Isaac was born of the Flesh but declared that the Power of God was required to fecundate the barrenness of his Mother In like manner when St. Austin names this Word Spiritually or Word of Spirit he does not deny that the Bread is Flesh but intimates that the power of God is required to quicken Bread into the Body of Christ And thus the first Proposition Ye must understand what I have said spiritually does not at all diminish the reality of Christ's Substance in the Sacrament The Second Proposition Ye are not to eat this Body which ye see properly denotes the Quality or divers existence of Christ's Body Thus St. Ambrose said that the change of Life is sufficient to verify this Speech I am not I I justified am not I a sinner and yet I am the same man in substance Thus St. Lanfrancus answered Berengarius alledging the same Passage which you object out of St. Austin 'T is not the same if we consider the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament 't is the same if we regard the Substance Thus the very same Passage is cited in Gratian with this addition Ye are not to eat this Body which ye see I have recommended a certain Sacrament to you which being Spiritually understood will give you Life ye are to eat him and not to eat him ye are to eat him visibly under the species of Bread ye are not to eat him visibly in the shape of Flesh And lest we should doubt of the reality of his Flesh in the Sacrament St. Austin has left us this invincible Argument in the same Place of your Objection He will says this Father give us that Flesh which he received from Mary in which he walked on Earth and which is first to be adored before we receive it Language which the Church of England will censure for Heresie Paragraph IV. YOU instance this Testimony According to that Flesh which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me He is ascended up into Heaven and is not here The forementioned Solution satisfies this Objection for we are not to have him in his Natural Existence we are to receive him in a Sacramental Existence Thus the variation of state and change of life caused the great Apostle to say there were two Bodys in man The Animal Body and the Spiritual Body The Animal Body is a poor Passenger upon Earth strugling with Passions and restless Agitations The Spiritual Body is the glorified Corps when Soul and Body meet in Eternity It is sown a Natural Body says St. Paul it shall rise a Spiritual Body Which St. Austin thus expresses It is sown a Corruptible Body it rises an Incorruptible Body The divers existence of Christ's Flesh in Heaven and on the Cross was sufficient to St. Jerom to call it a Divine Body and a Terrene Body These two Bodies are but one in Substance the same in Heaven the same on the Cross the same which the Virgin brought forth and the same in the Sacrament Who eats says St. Austin of this Flesh let him first adore it Adoration testifies what it is Paragraph V. YOU alledge this Similitude from St. Austin As the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christs Body and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Body of Christ so the Sacrament of Faith meaning Baptism is Faith which the gloss of the Canon Law thus expounds It 's called the Body of Christ that is it signifies the Body of Christ Boniface inquiring how Infants when they are baptized are said to believe and renounce the Devil was thus instructed by St. Austin A Sacrament or holy sign is honoured for the most part with the names of the things themselves by reason of which Similitude the Sacrament of Faith Baptism may be called Faith which Infants receiving are said to believe This Answer exacting a confirmation obliged the holy Prelate pitching upon the Similitude of the Sacrament to cast his Eyes precisely on the sole outward appearance of the Symbols which in some manner or sense are Christ's Body and Blood. Not according to the truth of the thing as the Gloss notes or as St. Anselme exxpresses the visible appearance of Bread is not the Body of the Lord except as the Canon Law expounds it improperly and after some manner as it signifies and contains the Body of Christ What is signified or contained is the Mysterie which is not prejudiced by the foregoing Speech For a Mysterie properly speaking is some invisible thing Such is that of St. Paul If I know all Mysteries or hidden things And the Roman Orator expressed himself after the same manner when he said Keep this secret as a Mystery The visible appearance then of Bread though not the true Body of Christ may be called improperly Christ's Body and yet the thing signified or contained under this appearance be the true Body of Christ Or as Faith infused by baptismal regeneration to use St. Austin's comparison is true Faith so the thing received in the Sacrament is the true Body of Christ Paragraph VI. YOU add this remarkable Passage of St. Austin cited by Gratian As we receive the similitude of his Death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his Flesh and Blood and so neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor Pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking of the Blood of one that was slain St. Austin here delivers the strict Practice of the Church in his days hiding from the Pagans the Mystery of the Sacrament and adds this Reason in the same place If the Disciples of our Lord could not patiently receive what our Lord said how will these Incredulous endure us teaching the same Doctrine But of this more hereafter Nor does this Learned Father more exclude the reality of Flesh calling it the likness of Flesh Than St. Paul saying Christ appeared whilst he lived and conversed with
that our Doctrin if it had been new should ever have come in in any Age and been received in the Church and consequently it must of necessity have been the perpetual Belief of the Church in all Ages For if it had not been always the Doctrin of the Church when ever it had attempted first to come in there would have been a great stir and bussle about it and the whole Christian World would have rose up in opposition to it But you have shewn no such time when first it came in and when any such opposition was made to it and therefore it was always the Doctrin of the Church It is true you would fain have me believe that Rabanus Archbishop of Mentz and Heribaldus Bishop of Auxerre and Bertram opposed this Doctrin with all their might But what you have alledg'd from their Writings do not convince me Bertram indeed says the Writers of that Age talked according to their several Opinions differently about the Mystery of Christ's Body and Blood and were divided by no small Schism But what was this Schism This Schism or difference according to Bertram precisely consisted in two Questions First Whether there was a Figure in the Mystery Secondly Whether the Bread that was chang'd into Christ's Body was the Natural Body of Christ which was born of the Virgin Mary Bertram in the first part of his Treatise undertook to shew that there was a Figure in the Mystery as the conclusion of his Discourse in the end evidences in these Terms From what I have heitherto spoken 't is clear that the Body of Christ which the Faithful receive into their Mouths is a Figure if we regard the visible Species And lest any one should impeach him of Error in the Sacrament he straight added But if we consider the invisible Substance the Body and Blood truly there exist Grounding himself upon this Principle that the Substance of Bread was changed and the outward appearance only remained he could not conceive how his Adversaries who though they faithfully believed with Bertram and the Church that the Bread was changed into the true Body of Christ yet they deny'd there was any Figure in the Sacrament could reconcile Faith with their Opinion And this was his Reason For if the Bread and Wine were another thing than they were before Consecration they were changed And if the Substance was changed the visible species which remained must be a Figure Rabanus speaking of the Second Proposition viz. Whether the Bread which was changed into the Body of Christ was the Natural Body of Christ declares that it was not the Body of Christ received from the Virgin Mary in its natural existence but that it was the true Body which he received from the Virgin after a Supernatural and Sacramental Permanency The first Opinion which he rejects he charges with Novelty in the passage you cite Saying Some of late not having a right Opinion concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord have said that this is the Body and Blood of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary and in which our Lord suffered upon the Cross and rose from the Dead which Error we have opposed with all our might The other which was the belief of the Church he thus delivers God effected whatever he would in Heaven and on Earth From hence he deduces that Bread is chang'd into the Body of Christ and therefore adds it is no other Flesh no other truly than what was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered upon the Cross and rose from the Sepulcher And who does not believe this if he had seen Christ upon the Cross in the likeness of a Servant how would he have understood he was God unless Faith had prevailed with him to believe And in the 42 Chapter of the same Book he speaks thus It is the same Flesh which was given for thee and for all and hanged upon the Cross because truth testifies This is my Body which shall be given for you and of the Chalice This is my Blood which shall be spilt for you for remission of Sins From hence it is plain that what is now the very Doctrin of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament the two Learned Authors you have alledged Bertram and Rabanus never oppos'd But you tell us though for a more clear and satisfactory Answer to the pretended Demonstration of Mr. Arnauld you have consented to untie the knot yet you could without all these pains have cut it If you strive to cut it with no more skill than you have endeavor'd to untie it the work must be the labor of some Nobler Champion 'T is true you make use of in hopes to do the business Diogenes plain stroke of experience o'recoming Zeno's denial of Motion by walking before his Eyes Is then the Doctrin of Transubstantiation not the belief of the Primitive Church because Diogenes walked before Zeno 's Eyes A wilder Proceeding I never heard of from any Christian Divine and the bare relation of this matter of Fact is a full confutation thereof From the Pagan Philosophers you run for assistance to the Servants in the Parable who could not give any punctual account when the Tares were sown or by whom Yet it was manifest they were mingled with the good Wheat From hence you hasten to the Civil Wars of our Nation where at length our King his Gracious Majesty Charles the Second of Great Brittain was happily restored to his Crown without a great deal of fighting and Bloodshed From this place you take your journy into Turky and bring down the Grand Visier invading Christendom and besiegeing Vienna who was not opposed by the Most Christian King who had the greatest Army in Christendom in a readiness Whilst I ruminate these Similitudes I cannot easily conceive how you can joyn our Great Monarch's happy Restauration in a Simily with Tares where Wheat was sown and with the Grand Seigneur invading Christendom and not give occasion to the Reader to think you either wanted circumspection in the choice of your Arguments or imprudently left a suspicion of your Loyalty And I wonder how a man of your great Wit and Judgment could prevail with himself to conclude the Nullity of Mr. Arnauld's solid reasoning from Experiences or matters of Fact that have nothing at all to do with the Sacrament Why must Mr. Arnauld's Demonstration be weak and insufficient because the Christian King not long since reposed in peace with his great Army or some time ago our Gracious Monarch of happy memory was restored to his Crown or because St. Mathew wrote the Parable of the Tares All the Reason in the World is too weak to make good any such way of proceeding But to answer precisely to what you assimilate them in viz. from these Comparisons you would prove that the Controverted Doctrin might silently have come in and without opposition although the particular time and
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
travelled says he over the World and have found divers Sects but so sottish a Sect or Law I never found as is the Sect of Christians because with their own Teeth they devour God whom they worship It was great stupidity in the People of Israel to say Come let us make us Gods but it was civilly said of them Let us make us Gods that may go before us in comparison of the Church of England who calumniously make the Catholics say let us make a God that we may cat him when we only say God has power to change Bread into his Body But the greatest Stupidity of all is that in all Probability you think those common Jugling Words of Hocus Pocus are nothing else but a corruption of Hoc est Corpus by way of a ridiculous Imitation of the Priest of the Church of Rome I grant this Imitation is very ridiculous And you are the first Juggler with this Divine Mystery and with our Saviour's own Words that ever I read of in my life But with all the Legerdemain and Jugling tricks of Falsehood and Imposture you l never make me believe you sooner than I do the Scripture Nay if Averröes Cicero and a whole Progenie of Heathen Philosophers were as great Jugglers as your self and altogether design'd to put a Trick upon me you should never juggle me by the Grace of God out of my Faith in Christ And Lastly If I should ask counsil of the Philosophers as you do in the concern of the Sacrament to know the true cause of this Universe Heraclitus would tell me Atoms produced it Pythagoras would send me to the Marriage in Numbers The Valentinians would bring me to the four Principles which made the Treatise of Peace between Verity and Silence Light and Profoundness But whilst I let them enquire one of another what gave being to these Atoms who thought these Numbers whence came this Verity what is the Origin of this Silence the Source of this Light the Prop of this Profoundness I rest contented in mind and instructed with this Passage of Moses In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth God is the Cause of all things Cicero may dispute with his false Gods And Averröes may deride Christians A Jugler may laugh at our Saviour's Institution These words this is my Body silences them all and excites me to say with St. Austin Dispute You I will believe Article II. Of the Barbarousness of this Doctrin THE eating Man's Flesh in its proper shape is no doubt very barbarous But I think the eating our Saviour's Flesh under the Species of Bread and Wine appears barbarous neither to Sense nor to Reason Theophilact asks in John 6. Why does it not appear Flesh to us but Bread and Answers lest we should have horror to eat it And what you call horrible St. Chrysistom calls amiable For what more Kind than to give himself But you cannot imagin the Ancient Christians ever own'd any such Doctrin because then we should have heard of it from the Adversaries of our Religion in every Page of their Writings This cannot be expected For very few Pagans concern'd themselves with the Rites of Christianity And of these the most Famous complain Christians conceal'd the Doctrins they professed Hence that Murmur of Cecilius in Minutius Felix Why are the Christians carefull to hide and steal their Worship from Mens eyes since Honesty is never asham'd to face Light And Celsus disgusted upon the same account calls our Religion a Clandestin or hidden Doctrin To which Origen occurs T is true there are some Points among us not communicated to all the World nor is this peculiar to Christians The Philosophers observ'd two sorts of Principles some were public and common to all others were private and the Science of particular Disciples 'T is therefore in vain Celsus undertakes to discover the Secrets of Christians not knowing in what they consist St. Austin and St. Denys the Areopagite teach the same And yet whether the Pagans knew them or knew them not you will have them revile our Mysteries in every Page of ther Writings Nor are you contented with this for you add With what confidence would they have set the Cruelty used by Christians in their Sacrament against their God Saturn's eating his own Children but that no such Argument was then objected by the Heathens to the Christians is to a wise Man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that no such Doctrin was believed Now sure I am nonplust For how can I solve an Objection which stands instead of a thousand Demonstrations What Author will happily fall into my hand or dictate how our Adversaries gathered from Slaves and Captives a rude Relation of this Mystery which was matter enough for them to hit us in the Teeth in requital of Saturn's eating his Children with the killing and feasting on Flesh and Blood This Passage perchance of Tertullian may suffice any sober Understanding that the Pagans did not omit such a return you seek after We are says he called wicked Infanticides Child killers and nourished with raw Flesh Athanagoras comes nearer and reminds us how the Pagans with confidence set the cruelty used by Christians in their Sacrament if not against the God Saturn's at least against Thyestes's another like History eating his own Child We are impeach'd says he by Pagans of Three horrible Crimes of taking away the Gods of Thyestean Banquets eating of a Child and of Incests St. Justin Martyr fits you with Saturn's own Fable 'T is reported says he to the Pagans we practice Saturn's Mystery and killing Man exercise with hands full of goar all the cruel and bloody Rites of your Idolatry Now sure I may conclude with you that because such a thing was then objected by the Heathens to the Christians it is to a wise Man instead of a thousand Demonstrations that the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was believed in Primitive Ages and then modestly vindicated from these foul Aspersions Article III. Of the Bloody Consequences of this Doctrin IF this Doctrin had been the occasion of the most Barbarous and Bloody Tragedies to use your words that ever were acted in the World the Enemies of Christianity would have hit them in the Teeth with these Cruelties of terrour fury and rage and what endless Triumphs would they have made upon this Subject But that no such thing was objected by the Heathens is to a wise Man instead of a thousand Demonstrations And what you want here of Authority you supply and make up in a zealous appearance of Devotion breaking into this Exclamation O Blessed Saviour who can imagine that ever Men should kill one another for not being able to believe contrary to their Senses for being unwilling to think that thou shouldst make one of the most barbarous things that can be imagined a Principle of thy Religion for not flattering the Presumption of the Priest who says he
can make God. This is certainly to run headlong into Hell in Heavens Road wheedling the People into Blind Extasies with Hypocritically crying out O Blessed Saviour But all who says O Lord O Lord shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Examine your own Prayer and Reason will find matter enough to discuss and Conscience more to correct What Catholic ever said First That Men should kill one another Secondly That the most barbarous thing in the World is a Mystery of Religion Thirdly That we flatter the Priest who says he can make God These are as true as your Prayer is without Calumny or Hypocrisie They are as true as there were Execrable Murders committed to drive People into this Senseless Doctrin by no Body in no Place But they are not as true as the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was delivered by Christ and his Apostles taught by the Consent of the Fathers Divinely revealed and propagated to Posterity and so free from Stupidity quiet from Cruelty and a Pious Mystery of our Religion Article IV. Of the Danger of Idolatry IF we should be mistaken as you suppose about this Change through the crosness of the Priest which God forbid it should happen not pronouncing the words of Blessing or Consecration we should not at all be guilty of Idolatry For believing only one true God we profess there is infinite Distance between him and all Creatures and therefore we cannot so honour any Creature as we do the true God. Nor is our Intention ever determined by the Will to adore any thing which is not God So that if the Hoast were not through mistake consecrated by the Priest the Peoples Adoration would be terminated in Christ where e're he is because it is directed to God and not to a Creature The Pagans 't is true or Persians cannot be excused from Idolatry in worshiping the Sun because erring from the knowledge of the true God they direct their Adoration to what is not God but a Creature Mr. Thorndyke one of the great Lights of your Church was so convinced in this point that he professes should this Church of England declare that the Change which we call Reformation is grounded upon this Supposition of Idolatry in the Church of Rome I must then acknowledge that we Protestants are the Schismatics CHAP. II. Of the Monstrous Absurdity of this Doctrin TO shew the Absurdity of this Doctrin you are contented to ask these few Questions Question 1. Whether ever any Man have or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation Answer If we had no surer Evidence of Revealed Truth than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation we should have no true Evidence for Christian Religion And thus by your First Question Christianity would immediatly be dispatched out of the World. Quest 2. Supposing the Doctrin had been delivered in Scripture in the same words which we read in the Council of Trent You ask by what stronger Argument could any Man prove to me that such words were in the Bible than I can prove to him that Bread and 〈…〉 Consecration are Bread and Wine still Answer The Sense of the Council of Trent and that of the Scriptures are one and the same If therefore I can but appeal to 〈◊〉 Eyes to prove such words to be in the Bible as you do appeal to your Senses to prove that Bread and Wine remain after Consecration what the Scripture says is evidently true according to the Testimony of Sense and your Testimony from Sense of the substance of Bread remaining is evidently false I have great assurance of this For St. Paul forbids me to believe an Angel if he should come down from Heaven and teach me contrary to what is writ in Scripture As this is the substance of Bread and not my Body is contradictory to this is my Body And what Prerogative enjoy you beyond that of an Angel And if you draw one way with your Evidence of Sense and Scriptural Evidence from Sense draw another way is it not evident that your evidence is good for nothing Quest 3. Whether it be reasonable to imagin that God should make that a part of Christian Religion which shakes the main external Evidence and Confirmation of the whole You mean the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles the Assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of Sense Answer With great Reason and Justice you appeal to the Senses of those who say they saw the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles because their Eyes were the proper Witnesses of Miracles So with the same Reason and Justice I appeal to my Senses to prove that the words which teach the Doctrin of Transubstantiation are in Scripture because Paper Ink Syllables and words are the proper Objects of Seeing feeling and hearing How then does the Catholic Tenet shake the main External Evidence of the Christian Religion when this external proof of Sense evidences from Scripture Transubstantiation Quest Whether our Saviour's Argument were conclusive or not proving to his Disciples after his Resurrection that his Body was risen Luke 24. 29. Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as you see me have And if seeing and handling be an unquestionable Evidence that things are what they appear to our Senses then the Bread in the Sacrament is not chang'd into the Body of Christ Answer Sense in its own Objects is frequently certain and here we may rely on it According to this Principle the Argument which our Saviour used did certainly prove to the Disciples that what they saw and handled was his true Body For affirmation of Flesh and Bones rightly follows from feeling and seeing These Actions belong properly to the experience of Sense Besides we have all this recorded in Scripture And our Saviour made use of all other Arguments imaginable to confirm the Mystery of his Resurrection In some Circumstances the Senses may deceive us and then we ought not to rely on them Thus the Jews designing to precipitate our Saviour from the top of a Mountain Jesus as we read in Scripture passed through the crowd and departed and the whole Multitude trusting to that Information which Sense gave them believ'd he was a Ghost or Apparition In like manner the same true Body of Christ is substantially present in the Sacrament after a Spiritual Existence and therefore it is not the proper Object of Sense and so we cannot here rely on our Senses We must then trust to something else viz. to the Testimony of Scripture which is the Rule of Faith to know surely what Substance or Body lies under the Species or appearance of Bread. Now the Scripture teaches us that the Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ This is my Body and the Bread which I will give is my Flesh
Privation to the Habit from Death to Life and this perswasion ceases acknowledging our Saviours Resurrection Reasons reluctancy proceeding from Senses information must yield to the Power of Revelation or we must cease to be Christians Thus Julian Apostatised and derided Christians that they were so stupid to blindfold Reason with the bare word of a Crede you must Believe This in St. Gregory Nazianzen is recorded St. Clement in the Second Centurie relates the same of the Greek Philosophers and confutes them by this Definition of Supernatural Faith Faith which the Greeks look upon as vain and unreasonable is a voluntary Anticipation a Pious yielding the Substance of things which are hop'd for and an evidence of what is not seen according to the Divine Apostle Faith is First according to this Ancient Father a voluntary Anticipation of Reason and you wilfully Anticipate Faith by Reason Secondly Faith is a pious Assent to Divine Testimony and you boldly contradict our Saviours own words Thirdly It is the Substance of things hop'd for and you reply there 's nothing to be hoped for of Substance in the Sacrament Lastly Faith is an Evidence of things not seen and you contend Reason evidences the contrary Reason rather with St. Ambrose who declares We believe Fisher-men we do not Believe Philosophers St. Cyril of Alexandria conceived it impossible to believe where Reason intermixes inquiries St. Chrysostom avow'd the very letting of an How can it be is a beginning of incredulity St. Augustin avers that if we first demonstrate and afterwards believe we become both Ignorant and Incredulous And our B. Saviour adds the heavy burden of Condemnation as we read in St. Mark Who will not Believe shall be Condemned This is sufficient to shew that Reason in matters of Religion ought to take her information not from Sense but from the proposal of God and Divine Scriptures Now I examin Whether Scripture Authorise Transubstantiation You say we pretend for this Doctrin the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour this is my Body So likewise do we pretend for the same Doctrin the Authority of Scripture from the 6 Chapter of St. John which you passing over in silence as inconsiderable I shall endeavor to manifest as of great importance Let us not mix confusedly the thing which our Saviour promises to give and the manner of receiving the Gift A worthy receiving the Gift is Spiritually by Faith. This is not contested The Question is What is the thing promised to be given whether the true Body of Christ or not Our Saviour gives two Promises both of the same thing his own Substance both contained in the 51 verse of St. John the Bread that I will give is my Flesh behold the Promise of himself in the Sacrament And which I will give for the life of the World intimates the Promise of himself to the Cross The Promises are distinguished the Substance is the same because the same Spirit of Truth which delivers two Promises assures one Substance What is then this Bread which Christ promised to give in the Sacrament Christ answers it is my Flesh and that Flesh which he will give for the life of the World. Was this a piece of Bread or the true substantial Body of Christ This is peculiarly seconded from our Saviours appeasing the murmur of the Capharnait's and raising their Incredulity to the Mystery of his Flesh by presaging the resuscitation of his own dead Body What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before If I should now return your Sense of the Sacrament for a reply to our B. Saviour and say we understand the Promise given of your Flesh to be Eaten in Figure only not in Substance would not the Reader straight subsume Then only the Figure of his Body ascended into Heaven and so void our B. Saviours Argument and destroy the Miraculous Ascension Another discontent succeeding among the Jews caused our Saviour to instance once more the Power of his Divinity It is the Spirit that quickeneth the Flesh profiteth nothing This Spirit they were promised to receive in the Sacrament and this Spirit is truly Christ God and Man. The Flesh profiteth nothing if we believe St. Austin as Science according to St. Paul puffeth up Science all alone barren of Charity for so properly Science puffeth up Add Charity to Science with the Divine Apostle and then Science Flourishes and is Fruitful The Body of Christ as a mortal and fading Creature profiteth nothing Joyn God to Man and the Flesh of Christ profiteth exceedingly Thus it profited on the Cross and profiteth in the Sacrament St. Cyril of Alexandria giving the same literal Exposition says when Christ called himself Spirit he did not by this deny that he was Flesh and so concludes that this Spirit was Christ himself If this Spirit then be Christ who Promised to give in the Sacrament what he Promised to give for the life of the World on the Cross who will question that he did not perform what he promised Or would promise what he could not effect 'T is dangerous to limit the Power of the Deity 't is impious to question the Promise of God. And yet alas some Men are so enamoured with what they can feel to have some Substance in it that Idolizing with Sense they are not sensible how Christ promised to give himself in the Sacrament they question the very Gift it self and endeavor to make good these two things 1st That there 's no necessity of understanding these words of our Saviour This is my Body in the sense of Transubstantiation 2ly That there is a great deal of Reason to understand them otherwise These two general Arguments deserve to be the Subject of two Chapters CHAP. I. Of the necessity of understanding our Saviours Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation IF there be any such necessity you pretend it must be either 1st Because there are no Figurative expressions in Scripture or else because a Sacrament admits of no Figure 2ly You are willing to stand to the plain concession of a great Number of the most Learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this controversie These two main Proofs shall be considered in the following Articles Article 1. Examen of your First Proof I Know not upon what account you say that if our Saviours words can be taken in the Sense of the Roman Catholic Assertion this must be either because there are no Figures in Scripture or because a Sacrament admits of no Figure Had any of our Authors made use of such Reasons or inclined the least this way you would not have omitted such Authority But if you Write what you have not Read for the pretended ground of Transubstantiation I 'm sure you have not Writ what you have Read for the real understanding thereof I shall remind you of some few Motives which induce Roman Catholics to believe our
Saviours words can import no less than the verity of Transubstantiation FIRST MOTIVE The Written Law shadowed future Truth and this Truth was Christ So we read Moses sprinkled with Blood the Book and People saying This is the Blood of the Testament which God hath enjoyned unto you The Blood of the Ancient Covenant was the Figure of the Blood of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament This appears from the words of our Saviour in the Institution This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many This Miraculous concord of the Old and New Covenant This repetition of the very same Phrase is an Evidence beyond denyal that the former was a Symbol of the latter And since you cannot understand the latter of Christs Blood spilt on the Cross Because you pretend St. Luke says his Blood was then shed which is shed for many which preceded the Crucifiction It follows necessarily to be understood of the true Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Because a Figure is not without the Reality nor a Shadow without a true Body SECOND MOTIVE As it is true that Jesus took Bread so are we taught that he blessed it And what he brake and what he gave to his Disciples was without doubt what he had blessed or consecrated The Question is what this was None of the Evangelists say that he gave Bread they say Jesus took Bread and Jesus assures what was blessed broken and given was his Body saying This is my Body If it was then Bread as the Evangelists note Jesus took Bread and after the Divine Benediction or Consecration became his Body as Jesus affirms this is my Body Then without extorting or racking of Scripture without adding figurative Glosses and wicked is the Man who superads to Scripture the facile sense of Scripture readily leads to the plain Article of Transubstantiation THIRD MOTIVE The Circumstances of our Saviour urge for the Literal Acceptation of This is my Body For Jesus spoke to his Apostles to his dearest Friends preparing to bid his last Adieu and then if ever Sincerity discloses it self without difficulty and after a facile and intelligible Method He 's Wisdom it self and knew how to Phrase his Thought He 's Omnipotent and so can surmount what Human Frailty might conceive as impossible He 's Goodness it self and cannot deceive us And therefore said what it was and what he said was true FOURTH MOTIVE Is the conformity of Scriptures For if Christ had ever design'd to signifie that the Eucharistical Bread was only the Figure of his Body it would surprize us what inclin'd him to make use of this Speech this is my Body and after such a choice to leave it barely without explanation when he so carefully taught his Disciples the true meaning of many easier Parables 'T would astonish us finding the three Evangelists with St. Paul who testifies he received the same Doctrin from revelation not constrain'd nor combining to joyn in expression yet to repeat all the same words without the Least alteration And we read in Latin Greek Syriac Arabic all Versions and Languages nothing but the same expression and equal confirmation FIFTH MOTIVE The very same Interpretation of other Scriptural Passages wherein are grounded the chief Articles of Christian Belief enforces the sequel of Transubstantiation For I believe adhering to Scripture as the Rule of Faith that this Passage the word was made Flesh imports a Substantial Union I believe the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father included in these words I and my Father are one I believe one Divine Essence of three distinct Persons revealed in These three are one Upon these Testimonies of Holy Writ Substantially understood I quietly repose my belief of the Incarnation of our Saviour the Son's Divinity and of the sole and undivided nature of the Blessed Trinity This Method is further secur'd by the consent of all those who are and pretend to be true Members of Christ's Religion Now if I follow this Determination so authorized and so certain if I follow this motive of my own Conviction in other like Articles extending the same uncontrol'd Interpretation to this is my Body I must necessarily grant this Inference this is my Substantial Body Thus my Faith seeks to be one as Scripture is one and God one Truth As this literal Reflection is sincere and pious the figurative Explanation of our Saviour's Words wants no Fallacy nor Impiety For if I may presume to give this sense to our Saviour's Words this is not my Substantial Body this Presumption ought to be strongly grounded as allowable just and in Equity to be follow'd And if so then I may lawfully give the same exposition to the three alledg'd Articles For the Scripture urges not more out of this Passage The word was made Flesh the substantial connexion of the Second Person with Human Nature or out of these words I and my Father are one the identity of the Son with the Father or out of these Three are one the unity of Nature in three Divine Persons than out of this is my Body the Substantial Body of Christ If therefore I might lawfully understand our Saviour's words in an empty figurative exposition saying this is not my Substantial Body I might rightly deduce following the same interpretation then the word was not substantially made Flesh and so deny the Mystery of the Incarnation I and my Father are not substantially one and so prosess Arianism These three are not substantially one and so dividing the Divine Nature constitute many Gods. Can such a figurative Explanation be thought a sincere part of the True Religion which undermines and utterly destroys the whole Fabrick of Christianity And ought not my own Motive in the most considerable Mysteries of Christianity contained in Scripture be to me the same in the determination of the true Sense of This is my Body SIXTH MOTIVE The true sense of our Saviour's words may be gathered from the Doctrin which the Learned and Ancient Fathers maintain'd against incroaching Heresie What if I should now advance that the Successors of the Apostles upbraided Heretics for denying the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ that Flesh which suffered for us upon the Cross would you not look upon it as an invincible undertaking and yet the glorious Martyr St. Ignatius elected Bishop of Antiochia thirty eight years after our Saviour's Passion plainly delivers They certain Heretics whose Names he thought convenient not to mention do not receive Eucharists or Sacrifices because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which Flesh suffered for our sins and which the Father raised again by his benignity Nor is it enough to say these Heretics could not admit the Eucharist to be a Figure because they deny'd that Christ had true Flesh This perchance is true But it is not here the sense of the Martyr who says expresly that they reject Eucharists because they do
in Testimonies they give one of another and to despise God in those he speaks of himself St. Chrysostom adds We speak of God and you ask how this can be do you not tremble at the excess of your Temerity Our Blessed Saviour himself reprehended his Disciples following what Sense suggested at the proposal of the Sacrament in these words doth this offend you Finally The pious Christian guides his unruly Sense in the journey towards Heaven by the steady Reyns of true Faith. Thus the Apostles overcoming their own stubborness became supple and obedient to God's Promise and Power infinitely active beyond Human Imagination and they all joyned in St. Peter's confession And we believe and are sure thou art Christ the Son of the living God. Thus Divine Faith another time prevailed with St. Peter when Sense Reason and the fury of the Sea contradicted to press the Waves with his Feet and hardned the watry Element into a solid Passage The way to Heaven is still by Faith. From all which it must needs be very evident to any Man who will piously search into Truth how little reason there is to understand our Saviour's Words otherwise than in the sense of Transubstantiation SECT II. Of the perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church I Have already manifested how the Roman Catholic Church rightly pretends as an evidence that the Fathers of the Primitive Ages interpreted our Saviour's Words in the sense of Transubstantiation But what Authors have been so fortunate in their Writings that the contrived endeavours of others have not cull'd out some places not so dark in themselves as they are shaded with smothered Representations These your Industry with no small increase has compacted together After this great Task you are pleased to shew when the Doctrin of Transubstantiation first came in And finally you undertake to give a Solution to the pretended Demonstration of Mr. Arnauld a learned man in France These three Subjects shall be the Mattter of so many Chapters CHAP. I. Whether any of the Fathers are against Transubstantiation REflection is the cause of Knowledge Division leads to Reflection I 'll therefore divide your selected Testimonies that they may be the consideration of so many distinct Articles Article I. Upon St. Justin Martyr YOU begin unfortunately with St. Justin whom you make expresly to say that our blood and flesh are nourished by the conversion of that Food which we receive in the Sacrament I find no such thing in the holy Martyr 'T is true I read these words By which Food chang'd in our Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Blood and Flesh are nourished What then Bread and Wine taken out of the Sacrament nourish according to this Passage Flesh and Blood which all the World will allow of And I shall believe St. Justin says no more till you can prove it from the Saint's own Testimonie But why do I say Testimonie when the Passage you cite is nothing but a bare Parenthesis I could heap up a great many such weaknesses collected out of your Discourse if the World were not already too much troubled with such trivial Reflections I 'll take liberty to add one more considerable viz. If natural digestion can change Bread and Wine into the proper Substance of our Bodies how easy will it be to Nature's Author to change one thing into another Bread into the Body of Christ Nor can any moderate Man imagin any thing less when the Devil himself tempted Christ to change one Substance into another Stones into Bread as a Strategem to find out whether he was God. Look likewise into the Book of Genesis and you 'll find that the sole Word of God gave in the beginning of Creation a Being to all Nature and how much more difficult is it to make all things of nothing than to change one thing into another Does not this evidence the possibility of Transubstantiation I thank you for this Objection Article II. Upon St. Irenaeus NOR are you more fortunate in St. Irenaeus who speaking of the Sacrament says The Bread which is from the Earth receiving the Divine Invocation is now no longer common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the one earthly the other heavenly For what is earthly may not unfitly be called the species of Bread and what is heavenly Christ himself Or what if I should attribute this earthly thing to Christ's Humanity and the heavenly thing to Christ's Divinity the Sacrament would be rightly said consisting of two things the one earthly the other heavenly I am sure the Proper Substance of Bread is nothing but Common Bread And yet St. Irenaeus affirms this ceases after Consecration receiving the Divine Invocation 't is no longer Common Bread it is not what it was before You instance and elsewhere he hath this Passage when therefore the Cup that is mixt and the Bread that is broken receives the Word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ of which the substance of our Flesh is increased and subsists St. Irenaeus discourses not here of a natural but of some spiritual increase of Flesh and Blood. For he says our Flest is increased with the Bread as it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ in which sense precisely 't is only supernatural Food Bread as it is supernatural Food or the true Body of Christ in the Sacrament increases the Soul with Grace and Flesh and Blood with a Legitimacy of Immortality These two great Benefits are neatly delivered as the proper effects of Christ's substantial presence in the Sacrament in these words of the Nyssene Doctor As the dire consequence of Poyson is by Counterpoyson prevented so the wholsome remedy which operates our Salvation entring the Bowels of Man thence every-where diffuses its force and vivification What is this wholsome remedy That Body which Jesus exhibited stronger than Death and which was the beginning of Life What can more evince Christ's substantial Presence to be the productive Cause of Sacramental Grace than to testifie this Adorable Body which died for us is in ours as a wholsome remedy there communicating Virtue and dispensing heavenly Treasures So is the same true Body of Christ present in the Sacrament the cause effective of our future Incorruption in Glory and increases in this sense the substance of Flesh and Blood with a beginning of Immortality as appears from the following Lines of the same Father Jesus according to the dispensation of Grace enters by Flesh into those who believe mixing himself with the Body of the Faithful that Man may become Partaker of Incorruption by the union with this Immortal Body This second benefit in St. Irenaeus's mind increases the Substance of Flesh and Blood giving a beginning of resurrection to the Body Or to use this Saint's Example As a grain of Wheat dissolved in earth rises by the power of God with much increase so Flesh and Blood
Sinners upon Earth in the likeness of Man deny'd that he was truly Man. 'T is true many Dissenters from the Catholic Church and Hereticks grounding themselves on this Scriptural Passage Christ appeared in the likeness of Man eagerly taught that he was a Phantasm or Appearance not a natural Man composed of Flesh and Bone. And you their Faithful Imitator gloss after the same manner not upon Scripture but upon a single Passage of one Father and this too borrowed from Gratian. But with how little reason you gloss after this manner these following Passages of S. Austin taken out of the same Gratian will farther demonstrate The First is part of the Canon wherein your Objection is contained These are his Words What exteriorly appears in the Sacrament is a Figure the Truth is the Body and Blood of Christ made of the Substance of Bread and Wine The Second Passage is We faithfully confess it is before Consecration Bread and Wine which Nature made but after Consecration the Flesh and Blood of Christ which Benediction consecrated The Third is the meaning of that Passage of our Saviour The Bread which I will give in the 6th of St. John which words determine in St. Austin's mind How Christ is Bread not only as he is the Word which gives all things life but also according to the Flesh assumed for the life of the World. Is this not real Flesh Paragraph VII YOU mention but one more Testimony but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered It is in his Treatise de Doctrina Christiana where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or commanding us to do good it is not figurative if the contrary it is figurative for example except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you this seems to command a heinous Crime therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord. If I should deny that St. Austin speaks here of receiving the Sacrament you would be puzled to find out a warrant for your famous Assertion For many Learned Writers judiciously remark that these words except ye eat of my Flesh in Saint Austin's Sense may be thus explicated except ye eat it by Faith by Piety by Good Works which is a Spiritual Communion out of the Sacrament of the Passion of our Lord. And if this be true as it is more than probably so St. Austin says here what all Catholics profess For we all say we may communicate spiritually of the Passion of Christ by Faith believing in Jesus when we receive not the Sacrament and yet we believe in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But if you will still keep this Holy Father whose Learning has always been the Admiration of Mankind out of his wits to use your Phrase a slight reflection supposing he speaks here of Sacramental Communion will help him to return to himself and reconcile him to the Catholic Affirmation I think one of a mean Capacity can distinguish the manner of eating and the thing eaten Which if true St. Austin may literally understand the thing eaten in the Sacrament to be the true Flesh of Christ God and Man and yet at the same instant hold that the manner of eating this Flesh to which this Passage except ye eat my Flesh has referenee is Spiritual For although the true Body be taken in the shape of Bread into the Mouth and let down into the Stomack yet it is not ground with the Teeth or separated in pieces We are taught after a Spiritual manner to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. Lissen to the Voice of God and you 'l hear the Gospel mention eating a Man take eat this is my Body The manner is Spiritual for the Body is given in the shape of Bread and in this Sense St. Austin calls these words except ye eat my Flesh a figurative Speech The Substance or the thing eaten is not here mentioned by the Saint But it is the true Body of Christ as the same Saint assures us else-where in these Lines We believe in the Sacrament with faithful heart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man Christ Jesus giving us his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drank although it appear more horrible to eat than to kill Human Flesh to drink than to spill Human Blood. Every word almost instances a new Argument for the truth of the Flesh This oral receiving with mouth God and Man This horror of eating and drinking Flesh and Blood this Antithesis between eating and killing drinking and spilling terminated to the same substance leaves not the least scruple to doubt that the thing eaten is real Flesh and Blood. And pray what horror would there be to eat an Image of Flesh or what Language speaks of killing the Figure of a Man The same Saint in his Exposition on the 33d Psalm hath this Passage He 's truly our Lord who truly gave us his Body to eat in which he so much suffered Elsewhere he says the Faithful receive into their mouth that Blood which redeemed them And in his 27th Treatise on St. John speaking of St. Peter's Confession I find this remarkable Sentence You are Christ the Son of the living God and what you give in your Flesh and Blood is nothing else but your own self Now you must acknowledge the way I have prescribed or find some other expedient to reconcile St. Austin's Wit with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or all the World will imagine you put your own to a desperate adventure Article VII YOU mention two Testimonies out of Theodoretus's Dialogues between a Catholic under the name of Orthodoxus and a Heretic under the name of Eranistes who maintained with the Eutichians that the Humanity of Christ after the Ascension was changed into the Divinity I 'll examine each apart Paragraph I. The Dispute of Orthodoxus and Eranistes in the First Dialogue ORthodoxus undertakes to shew that the Humanity of Christ alwaies remain'd This he proves because the Humanity was a Vail or Garment to the Divinity as we read in Genesis where Jacob prophecy'd of the Messias He washed his Garment in Wine and his Cloaths in the Blood of the Grape Eranistes replys this is understood literally of his proper Habit with which he was cloathed upon Earth Orthodoxus resumes that Jesus called himself the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and the Blood of our Saviour is called the Blood of the Vine And if our Saviour be called the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and from the side of our Saviour ran Fountains of Blood on the rest of his Body The Prophet rightly foretold that He washed his Robe in Wine and his Cloths
have said to Theodoretus that is the outward shape of Bread remains And if these Words immediately following what you objected had been cited the difficulty would have been removed They the inward Substance of Bread and Wine pass by the operation of the Holy Ghost into a Divine Nature yet remaining in the propriety of their Nature It is only the Proprieties of the Nature of the Bread and Wine the Colour and the Tast that remain The Substance is changed For how could the inward Substance of Bread and Wine pass by Divine operation into Christ's Body and not cease to be how can a Protestant pass into the Roman Catholic Church and become a pious Member thereof and not truly cease to be a Protestant This Gelasius is not the learned Pope Gelasius and I need not labour to prove this Your own Critics write that that Treatise de duabus naturas whence you borrowed this Objection belongs to some other of the same Name I shall instance only one reason This Author ranks the Works of Eusebius Caesariensis among those of the Orthodox Fathers which cannot be said of the pious and learned Pope Gelasius who numbers the same Eusebius in his own Authentic Works with Apocryphal Writers There is then not one of our Popes against Transubstantiation And if you cannot alledg one Pope from the beginning of Christianity who teaches contrary to what is now professed in the Roman Church concerning this contested Article of Faith is it not a great Argument that it was alwaies taught in the Church of God Article IX Upon Facundus FAcundus the African Bishop justifying Theodorus Mopsuestenus who had said That Christ also received the adoption of Sons reasons thus Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of Adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized and the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood is by us called his Body and Blood. The intern Grace of the Holy Ghost received in Baptism properly constitutes us the true Sons adoptive of God which could not be conferr'd on our Saviour for he was enriched with the plenitude of perfection and was the natural Son of God. Yet Christ may be said Facundus urges to receive the Adoption of Sons because he vouchsafed to receive Baptism the Sacrament of Adoption Then seeking an Example to verify that Baptism may be called Adoption though it was not but only contain'd the Grace of Adoption was forced instancing the Blessed Sacrament barely to consider the Sacrament in the outward Species of Bread in the Eucharist which may be called the Body and Blood of Christ because it contains the Body and Blood of Christ What is contain'd in Baptism is it not the proper Grace of Adoption and what is contained in the Consecrated Species is the true Body and Blood of Christ Can any after this believe that what you have objected prejudices in the least the Universal and received Doctrin of the Christian Church of Bread and Wine substantially chang'd in the Sacrament into the proper and true Body and Blood of Christ What you repeat by way of Appendix the Names of some Catholic Divines is inconsiderable Only this I can say you might have more prudently omitted them in your own behalf than chang'd their Words in detriment to the Catholic Doctrin For Scotus only says that the truth of some Articles is more explicit or manifest in the Lateran Decrees than it was in the Symbols of the Apostles or in the Athanasian Creed or that of Nice and in a word what ever is here defin'd in the Council of Lateran is to be held as a sincere part of our Faith. Durandus does not say that he would have been of a contrary Opinion had not the Church defin'd for Transubstantiation but only tacitly insinuates that he would have made use of the Bread and Wine remaining with the Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was possible to God though really false in order to solve some Objections had not the Canon of the Church interven'd Nor ought we to be surprised at this For Durandus ordinarily walked on the brink of Faith in Assertions and therefore merited the Title of Temerarius Doctor in the Church of God. These are his Words The Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ yet although this be really true it was possible to God that the Body of Christ might have been in the Sacrament with the Substance of Bread which is not really true for the Church has decreed the contrary and she is presum'd not to err in her decisions Therefore holding the Bread chang'd into Christ's Body I answer to the contrary Objections Tunstal Bishop of Durham says from the beginning of Christianity no body doubted of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament and that the Learned Ancient Writers look'd upon the manner how the Bread passed into Christ's Body as inscrutable and not to be searched into lest we should seem to tempt Christ with the Capernaits doubting how this can be But through God-almighty's power to whom nothing is impossible the change of Bread into Christ's Body by Transubstantiation seem'd to Innocent the Third and those who sat with him in Council to agree most with these Words of Christ This is my Body And he censures those who deny this change with impudent boldness and opposes them to Christ saying If we believe them who profess your Error neither Christ nor the Holy Ghost can change Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body whose Word made all things of nothing Tell me what was Erasmus's Thought and I 'le answer what Religion he was of In some places he favours the Lutherans oftentimes he 's a Catholic I am sure he 's not a Protestant in that Epistle to Conradus If you are persuaded there 's nothing besides Bread and Wine in the Sacrament I had rather be torn in pieces than profess what you profess If Alphonsus say ther 's seldom mention in Ancient Writers concerning Transubstantiation these seldom Intimations are sufficient to shew that 't was always taught in the Church of God which ought to convince any unbyased Understanding CHAP. II. An Account of the coming in of Transubstantiation I Have already done this to your hand 'T was instituted by our Saviour I suppose then you mean a particular Account of the coming in of the Error against Transubstantiation and by what attempts and degrees it was advanced against the Romish Church The first Opposers of this Doctrin were the Capharnaits who scandaliz'd at our Saviour's Promise cry'd out How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat This was seconded with the Complaint of his own Disciples This is a hard saying and who can hear it Both were taxed with Incredulity as St. John writes in his Sixth Chapter And St. Austin calls them Heretics Judas heading them as their