to sharpen his blunt Weapons Which notwithstanding will prove no advantage to his Cause He here then tells us in his first Period That he will take the plain Concession of a great number of the most Learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controversie that there is NO necessity to understand our Saviour's Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation But what if it manifestly appear from the Words of these Writers that he takes this by force which they never gave him since they all thought themselves bound to accept the Words in that Sense which they acknowledge the Church to have given of them as deducible from Scripture by necessary Consequence tho' not so plainly prov'd from the bare Words consider'd by themselves as you shall see from their Authorities hereunder cited Then he proceeds like a false Mustermaster to make up the number of his List by calling Men that are not in it to answer to other Names than their own Bellarmin Suarez and Vasquez do acknowledge Scotus c. Again Bellarmin grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasquez acknowledge Durandus to have said as much Here they are wheel'd about a second time to make the greater Show yet there are but two Men in effect after all this calling The Author says Bellarmin and Suarez and Vasquez say Such a Man said such a Thing Why such a blundering sort of an Evidence would be flung out of any inferior Court of Judicature it faulters so manifestly at the very beginning that we may assure our selves it can never speak clearly Let us see therefore what Scotus saith for himself his Words are these If you say that Christ by saying This is my Body doth plainly teach us that the Bread doth not remain for then the Proposition would be false this is not cogent for supposing so that 't is but a Supposition still the Substance of Bread did still remain the Substance of Bread is not demonstrated here but what is contain'd under the Bread as now the Accidents are shew'd for then the Proposition would be false but the Sense is that which shall be contain'd under this sensible Sign is my Body Mark how much Scotus favors the Author's Opinion of the Senses being Judges of what is in the Sacrament Again he saith The truth of some things that are to be believ'd is more explicitly set down than in the Apostolic Athanasian or Nicene Creed and in brief whatsoever is by the Catholic Church propos'd to our Belief is to be held of the substance of Faith after a solemn Declaration made by the Church he gives the Reason afterwards Because the Scriptures are Expounded by the same Spirit by which they were made And thus he concludes telling us in plain terms That the Church therefore chose this Sense of Transubstantiation because it is true for it was not in the Power of the Church to make it true or false but of God Instituting it But the Church Explain'd the Sense which was deliver'd by God. And if it be so that Transubstantiation was the true Sense and that before the Declaration of the Council then there was a necessity to understand our Saviour's Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation according to Scotus as well before as after the Council since 't was the Sense deliver'd by God. Therefore when the Author saith he hath the plain Concession of a great number of the most Learned Writers of the Church of Rome reckoning Scotus in the first place that there is NO necessity to understand our Saviour's Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation he saith that which is not true Bellarmin indeed grants what Scotus said of the substance of Bread remaining notwithstanding its being converted into the substance of Christs Body as I shall presently shew that it is not ALTOGETHER improbable Non omnino improbabile altho' there may be great Improbability in the thing notwithstanding mark the Word which the Author is pleas'd to leave out that there is no place of Scripture extant so express as that without the Declration of the Church which notwithstanding clears the whole matter can evidently compel us to admit of Transubstantiation viz. in the Sense of the Thomists whose way of Explication of it is somewhat different from Scotus's But that not being of Faith there ought to be no Controversie about it and therefore the Council of Trent directly Condemn'd neither of these Ways And Durandus himself after he has Discours'd Problematically upon the Point like a Schoolman at last concludes solidly That that is not always to be chosen in matters of Faith which hath fewest difficulties consequent to it That the substance of Bread and Wine is chang'd into the substance of Christs Body That that only is principally effected in this Sacrament which is signified by the form of the words viz. of Consecration Which Argument being urg'd by him from Scripture for Transubstantiation is a plain Evidence that he did not deny the necessity of understanding our Saviours words in that Sense For he concludes positively from Scripture that both these things are made to be in this Sacrament viz. The Existence of the Body of Christ and the Conversion of the Bread into it And what is this but Transubstantiation Therefore what the Authors abovemention'd say concerning Scotus and Durandus is to be applied rather to their particular manner of explicating the Doctrin of Transubstantiation than to the thing it self since many other Authors do not think them to be mistaken in the Point Ocham seems to allow that the substance of Bread may remain tho' it forsake its accidents and the substance of Christ's Body doth not forsake them and this according to him was one way of solving Transubstantiation which he is far from saying to be contrary either to Reason or Scripture Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambray was of Opinion that it was possible and not repugnant to Reason nor the Authority of the Bible nay that it was more easie to be understood and more reasonable that the substance of Bread should remain there where the Body of Christ begins to be and that so the substance of the Bread should be said to pass into the subsance of the Body of Christ So that here is Transubstantiation still plainly maintain'd in his Sense and he doth not believe that there was need of any other Revelation for it than Scripture Gabriel Biel tells us that although it be expresly deliver'd in Scripture that the Body of Christ is truly contain'd under the Species of Bread and receiv'd by the Faithful yet it is not found expresly in the Canon of the Bible how the Body of Christ is there whether by the Conversion of something into it or whether the Body of Christ begins to be with the Bread without Conversion the substance and accidents of the Bread remaining But he doth not deny the former of these ways to be
necessarily deduc'd from Scripture and therefore this Authority makes nothing against us Cardinal Cajetan ' s words were censur'd and expunged by Authority and therefore ought not to be brought against us Cardinal Contarenus freely declares that all Divines agree although it be not plainly deliver'd viz. not in express words yet following Reason as their Guide and what is this but necessary rational deduction That this viz. which is done in the Sacrament cannot be effected by a local motion but by some change of the substance of Bread into the Body of Christ which is call'd Transubstantiation Melchior Canus doth acknowledg that the Church hath by the Spirit of Truth explain'd some things which are accounted obscure in the Holy Writings and that She doth justly judge the Authors of the contrary Opinions to be Heretics But things may be necessarily contain'd in Scripture altho' with some obscurity So that there is not so much as one of these Authors unless it be that which is condemn'd by the Church and therefore in that Point is none of ours who hath told us That there is no necessity to understand our Saviours Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation Lastly As if that true Martyr Bishop Fisher had not suffer'd enough already the Author exercises further cruelty against him by a false and imperfect recital of his words and corrupting their Sense This Holy Bishop indeed speaking of the words of Institution saith There is not one word put here by which it can be prov'd that in OVR Mass the true Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ is made to be which last words Is made to be The Author falsly renders by these words can be proved But this good Martyr doth not say that Christs words of Institution are not to be understood in the Sense of the True and Real Presence of his Body as made to be in that Sacrament which our Lord himself Consecrated but that the Power of Priests NOW to Consecrate in our Mass after the same manner is not express'd in the bare words of Institution And it is evident from the immediately following words of this Reverend Bishop that this is his true Sense which words run thus For altho' Christ made of the Bread his Flesh and of the Wine his Blood it doth not therefore follow by vertue of any word here plac'd that WE shall effect the same as often as we endeavor it As is also plain from the other words of this Reverend Authors in the same Chapter Without the Interpretation of the Fathers and the usage of the Church by them deliver'd down unto us no body will prove out of the bare words of Scripture that any Priest can Consecrate the true Body and Blood of Christ For although we allow Christ to have said what Scripture saith he did in this kind to the Apostles out of Luke and Paul it doth not therefore follow that he gave the same Power to all that were to succeed them for a Power of casting out Devils was given to the Apostles But that this Learned and Pious Bishop asserted the change of the substance of the Bread into the Body of Christ to be the necessary Sense of the words of Christ This is my Body is clear from these words of his If the Substance saith he of Bread is changed into Christ's Body Christ ought not to have said otherwise than he hath said And again If the substance of Bread remain then Christ ought to have spoke otherwise We must take notice that this Pious Bishop was defending Tradition as necessary for the Interpretation of some places of Scripture and particularly such which relate to the Power that those who succeed the Apostles have to Consecrate and upon very good Grounds since without Tradition we cannot conclude the Scripture it self to be the Word of God and no Church can prove the Succession of her Pastors to this high Function which is without doubt a Fundamental Point Since therefore the Protestants hold that there is a lawful Succession of Pastors in Gods Church as necessary to the Salvation of Mankind as evidently deduced from Scripture interpreted by Tradition tho' not from the bare words of the Institution of the Eucharist no less than Catholics and that they have as full a Right to Consecrate as the Apostles themselves they must therefore allow that they do do so And then there can be no doubt rais'd from the words of this holy Bishop but that Christ's Body and Blood are truly in the Sacrament by way of Transubstantiation which Doctrin he allows to have a certain Foundation in Scripture But the Author here would rather pull down the Pillars on which the Church of Christ stands by interrupting the Episcopal Succession and undermine its very Foundation than not set a Face upon his Argument that he may thereby delude unwary Christians Upon the whole matter it is plain from what hath been said 1. That not any of these Catholic Authors which are cited held that there was no necessity to understand our Saviours words in the Sense of Transubstantiation but the contrary 2. That they indeed differed only about some curious Speculations concerning the Dependences and Circumstances of this Doctrin of Transubstantiation which they Discours'd of in a Problematical way as for instance Whether this Transubstantiation is a Mutation and Transubstantiation Productive that is to say by vertue of which the Substance of the Body is produc'd from the Substance of Bread or a Mutation and Transubstantiation Adductive that is to say by vertue of which the Substance of Bread ceases to be and that of the Body be Introdu'd in it's place And whether in this Adductive Transubstantiation the Cessation of the Substance of Bread and Wine is to be call'd Annihilation or whether it ought to be exempt from this Name for as much as altho' it cease to be nevertheless this Cessation of it's Essence hath not Non entity for it's final Term but the Substitution of the Essence of the Body of Christ or the like and such kind of disputes which did not at all relate to the Essence of the Article of Transubstantiation but only to some consequences and modes of it for all the School-men agree That the Bread and Wine are chang'd and Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ by vertue of Consecration the Substances of Bread and Wine ceasing to be and those of the Body and Blood being substituted in their place 3. They evidently deduce the Essential part of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation from Scripture and altho some few of them do sometimes say that the bare words of Scripture do not compell us to believe the less material consequences of it yet they do not deny that these also may be rationally deduc'd 4. The Author doth not pretend to prove from these Authorities that these Writers did not hold the Real Presence of Christs Body here but only a sign and
Transubstantiation Defended And Prov'd from SCRIPTURE IN ANSWER TO THE FIRST PART OF A TREATISE INTITLED A Discourse against Transubstantiation The First Part. S. Ignatius Ep. ad Smyrnaeos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They abstain from our Communion because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ that very Flesh which suffer'd for our sins which the Father of his bounty raised again Those therefore which contradict this free gift of God die scrupulously Questioning the matter amongst themselves Publish'd with Allowance LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Maiesty for His Houshold and Chappel 1687. The Principal Contents of the Introduction 1. Reasons why the Discourse against Transubstantiation lay so long unanswer'd 2. The Real or Essential Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament shew'd to be the Doctrin of the English Church 3. How the Catholic Church necessarily inferreth Transubstantiation from our Saviours words understood in a proper Sense 4. The Pretended Demonstration to the contrary from the Sense of the Word This in those Words of our Lord This is my Body so highly boasted of in the Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney shew'd to be a mere Illusion AN INTRODUCTION To the ensuing ANSVVER SOme have wondred whilst others Triumph't and a late Writer particularly hath vainly boasted in a certain Letter to a Friend that Two great Doctors of the English Church had baffled their Adversaries of Rome even to the silencing of that Party and all this was because the Discourse against Transubstantiation lay so long unanswer'd The best account that I can give of the so long silence is that the more considerate knew that the said Discourse contained no new matter but only what had been very often objected against us since the Pretended Reformation of the English Church and as often fully Answered as also that there have been two large Volums Writen by a Learned Catholic Author and cited by the Discourser himself wherein the Objections against Transubstantiation are put much further than this late Discourse urges them and all clear'd beyond the Power of any solid Answer and we find none for many Years last past so much as offer'd at against the said Treatises nor yet to a more compendious one Entitled A Rational Discourse concerning Transubstantiation Publish't 1676. In which the chief Objections repeated since by the Discourser are fully clear'd Moreover the Doctrin of the English Church concerning the Real Presence being no less vigorously attacqu't by the late Discourser than that of the Roman Catholic it was thought more proper that some of them should have first return'd an Answer to it because they had the greater Reason to resent the injury done them since a wound from a pretended Friend is more grievous than from a profest Adversary Indeed I would not have the Genuin Sons of the English Church to think that we differ so much with them in this Point as some by Misrepresenting the thing would make us to do seeing that they do acknowledge with Bishop Andrews praesentiam non minus quam nos veram no less True Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament than we do and I am sure that is True enough our difference with them who deny Consubstantiation as is manifest from their Writings being only about the not admitting the Word Transubstantiation whereas they have so long freely acknowledged the thing For if the Body of Christ be Really present in the Sacrament and not with the substance of Bread it must be there without it under the External Species only of Bread and consequently such a change of substance as the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation must certainly be made and there can be no other Sense given of that Real Presence which hath been received in their Church Now that the Real Presence of Christs Body together with it's Vertue and Efficacy is the acknowledged Belief of the Greatest and most Learned Persons of the English Communion is certain notwithstanding the weak endeavor of an imperfect Answerer to the Animadversions upon the Alterations of their Rubrick lately Publisht to shew the contrary Which that it may the more plainly appear I shall add one Observation made by a Famed Doctor of their Church which will be the more Authentick because it was drawn from their Records It was proposed saith this Doctor to have the Communion Book viz. That put forth in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign so contriv'd that it might not exclude the Belief of the Corporal Presence I doubt not but they meant after a Spiritual manner as Catholics do suitably to St. Paul who uses the words Spiritual Body to signifie a Real Body existing after a Spiritual manner For the chief Design of the Queens Council was to unite the Nation in one Faith and the Greater part of the Nation continued to believe such a Presence which however seems to have been determin'd against in their former Articles and Rubrick Thereupon the Rubrick that explain'd the reason for kneeling at the Sacrament that thereby no Adoration is intended to any Corporal Presence of Christs Natural Flesh and Blood because that is only in Heaven which had been in King Edwards Liturgy is left out And in the Article about the Lords Supper the Refutation of the Corporal Presence was by Common consent left out And in the next Convocation the Articles were subscribed without them of which he tells us he had seen the Original Now whatsoever this Doctor whose usual Practice it hath been like the Snake in the Fable to bite and betray those that have cherisht him pretends to know of a Secret concerning this matter for which he doth not bring the least proof or Authority whereas he had seen the Original to be an evidence of what he had before said yet for my part I have more Deference for the English Church than to believe that the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament was after so much consideration about the matter now behold the secret comes out left as a speculative Opinion as he saith and not determin'd but every Man left to the freedom of his own mind because an express Definition against the Real Presence might drive from the Church many who were still of that perswasion For then those studiously alter'd Articles and Rubrick had only been made as a Trap to draw Men into Idolatry and keep them in it if you will believe some of the great Modern Writers who live in Communion at present with the English Church and yet deny that Real Presence which was both in Queen Elizabeths time and ever since believed in that Church and tax those with Idolatry who Worship Christ thus present Therefore we have good Reason to allow what he tells us afterwards that some we are sure that many of the most Learned amongst them have since truly inferr'd that the Chief Pastors of the Church did then
said This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed or more properly poured out for you and for many for the remission of Sins Did not our Lord plainly read in the minds of his Disciples that by the Cup they would understand that which was contained in the Cup If any one should advise the Author when he is thirsty to drink off his Glass would he be so inconsiderate as to swallow it together with the Wine Nay further so unhappy is the Author as to urge this instance of holy Scripture in the first place which alone is enough fully to clear the Point against him Neither the Apostles nor any men else could be so ignorant of the manner of human discourse as not to apprehend that our Saviour by the Cup meant what was contained in it which was most certainly Christs Blood for otherwise it could not be said of it as it is Luke 22. 20. that it was then poured out for the Apostles and for many for the remission of Sins it is said is poured out in the Present Tense not shall be poured out in the Future therefore here can be meant only the Blood of Christ as now poured out in the Sacrament for them not as it was afterwards shed from his Crucified Body upon the ground The Original runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where in construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Wine as a Figure only of Christs Blood or signifying its virtue could not be poured out for the remission of Sins You might with more congruity of Speech affirm of an Image of the Blessed Virgin This is that which conceived the Son of God because in this there is some plain resemblance to the Prototype Beza a great Critic in his way though an Adversary to the Catholic Doctrin in this Point not being able to deny this Proof would rather have the Scripture to be thought false although that be the whole Foundation of their Faith than change his Opinion and saith that it is a Solecism and should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He concludes that the holy Spirit or St. Luke that divinely inspired Pen-man the most eloquent of all the Evangelists could be sooner mistaken though in a matter of so great moment than himself or else he would have the Scripture to be falsified and corrupt in this place and not himself For he acknowledges that all the ancient Manuscripts which he had seen and even his own which was of great Authority and of venerable Antiquity venerandae Antiquitatis together with the Syriac Version to which he gives this Elogy that it was deservedly accounted to be of greatest authority maximae meritò authoritatis did conspire together to refer the effusion of Blood to the Cup. The Author therefore and all that separate from the Catholic Church in this Point must either at last be forced to confess here as Beza doth concerning those words of our Lord This is my Body That this saying thus exprest cannot be retained but it must prove Transubstantiation after the manner of the Papists or else that the Holy Scripture the Foundation of Christian Faith is made invalid So that it is plain from what hath been said that the Cup is here put for what is contained in the Cup and that the words so taken do signifie and operate a substantial Change not of the Cup but of the Wine in the Cup and that not into the New Testament or Covenant but into the Blood of Christ in which this New Covenant or Testament is made sealed and confirmed Besides that his Blood is said here then to be poured out and his Body then to be broken and given for us which they could not be unless they were then really in the Sacrament because the Passion wherein his Body was peirced only not broken as in the Sacrament and his Blood was shed from his Crucified Body upon the ground not only poured forth from one Vessel to another and drunk as in the Sacrament followed the Institution and first Celebration of this Sacrament DISCOURSE But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controversie Bellarmin Suarez and Vasques do acknowledg Scotus the great Schoolman to have said that this Doctrin cannot be evidently proved from Scripture And Bellarmin grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasques acknowledg Durandus to have said as much Ocham another famous Schoolman says expresly that the Doctrin which holds the Substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambrey says plainly That the Doctrin of the Substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more easie and free from Absurdity more rational and no ways repugnant to the Authority of Scripture nay more that for the other Doctrin viz. of Transubstantiation there is no evidence in Scripture Gabriel Biel another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church freely declares that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the Scriptures a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation into some other Revelation besides Scripture which he supposeth the Church had about it Cardinal Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ that we have this from the Authority of the Church Nay he goes farther That there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ this is my Body in a proper and not a metaphorical Sense but the Church having understood them in a proper Sense they are to be so explained Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. Cardinal Contarenus and Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Writers that Church ever had reckon this Doctrin among those which are not so expresly found in Scripture I will add but one more of great authority in the Church and a reputed Martyr Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true Presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in our Mass can be proved So that we need not much contend that this Doctrin hath no certain foundation in Scripture when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves ANSWER The Author hath had very little Success yet in that which he calls a Discourse against Transubstantiation therefore because he would now do some Execution he is forc't to come down to his Adversaries
disapprove of the Definition made in King Edwards time and that they were for a Real Presence And of this we can make no doubt when we peruse the Writings of those Pastors who succeeding them till this very time have given so full an account of their Faith in this weighty instance and yet have past uncensur'd nay have been of greatest esteem in their Church And how indeed can we imagin that Men of the least sincerity would leave an Article of infinite concern to Mens Immortal Souls in so undeterminat a Sense that Christians might believe which they pleas'd either that Christs Body was thus Really present in the Sacrament which if it were not they incurr'd the guilt of gross Idolatry or that it was not so which if Really it was they were guilty of Infidelity in not believing Our Lord upon his Word and a breach of the first Commandment in not Worshipping the second Person in the Trinity presenting himself to us in this Sacrament according to that saying of the Great St. Augustin concerning this matter Peccamus non adorando We sin in not Worshipping Such an Equivocation as this in an Assembly of Christian Pastors upon the proposal of so great a Point must needs have been of far more dangerous consequence to Christians than the Ambiguous Answers of the Delphic Oracle were to the Heathen World. This far then the business is clear'd that the Real and not Virtual Presence only of Christs Body in the Sacrament was the Doctrin of the English Church for what some Men amongst them of great Latitude in Belief have maintain'd to the contrary doth not prejudice the truth which the more sound of that Communion have generally asserted And notwithstanding that their Late Clergy in the Year 1661. in compliance to the Dissenting Party by the chief management of the late Lord Shaftsbury's Politic Spirit were induced after hard solliciting to receive an Additional Declaration tho' not Printed in their Rubrick Letter at the end of their Communion Service yet since they would not by any means be brought to receive the former Declaration of King Edward the Sixth's time without the change of those words It is here declared that no Adoration is here intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Essential Presence of Christs Natural Flesh and Blood into these which follow It is here declared that no Adoration is here intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there Bodily Received or unto any Corporal Presence of Christs Natural Flesh and Blood the words Real and Essential as you see being changed into Corporal this cannot but reasonably be imagin'd to be done out of Caution to the Present Church her maintaining still a Real and Essential Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament whereas those in the latter time of King Edward seem to have denied it Moreover tho' it be said in this last Declaration that the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural Substances and therefore may not be Adored yet if by Natural Substances or Essences here is no more meant as the words may very well be understood and are shewn by Catholics to be understood in the Authorities of Theodoret and Gelasius than the external and sensible Essences or properties of Bread and Wine and not the internal Substance or Essence this Declaration will not be repugnant either to the Real Presence or to Transubstantiation and the Adoration will be terminated neither on the Internal or External Essences of Bread and Wine but upon Christ the only begotten Son of God Really Present in the Blessed Sacrament which the Council of Trent it self hath declared to be the Sense of the Catholic Church as to the Point of Adoration Again if the last part of this Declaration wherein it is said that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one be yet urg'd to prove that the above mention'd Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist is not at present the Doctrin of the English Church I answer that whereas it is there said that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not here meaning in the Sacrament if by Natural Body be there understood Christs Body according to the Natural manner of a Bodies being present and according to which tho' in a glorified state it actually exists in Heaven we do not say that the Body of Christ is here in this Sacrament in that natural manner any more than the Doctors of the English Communion but if no more be mean't by the words Natural Body but the very true and as we may call it Essential Body of Christ tho' present in a supernatural manner proper to the Sacrament it is a very bold assertion to say absolutely that it is against the Truth of it to be so or that this cannot possibly be true since we know so little to what the Omnipotence of God which could convey this very Body into the Room where the Disciples were the Doors being fast shut can extend it self and yet the Body be the very same Body in verity of Nature which is in Heaven the Presence of which in the Sacrament a late Eminent Author of the English Church sufficiently intimates that some he might have said very many of their Divines have maintain'd notwithstanding the vain endeavors which the Answerer to the Treatise Printed at Oxford to shew the sentiment of the Church of England Divines in this Point has us'd to wrest them to another Sense For after having told us his own Opinion viz. that all which the Doctrin of his Church meaning the Church of England implies is only a Real Presence of Christ's Invisible Power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the Faithful receiving of them to convey Spiritual and Real Effects to the Souls of Men he subjoyns if any one yet thinks that some at least of our Divines have gone farther than this i. e. do seem to speak of the Presence of the very same Body which is in Heaven let them know says he it is the Doctrin of our Church I am to defend and not of every particular Divine in it Now altho' by those wary terms of every particular Divine and seeming to speak he endeavors what he can both to diminish the number and their clear acknowledgment of the Presence of the same Body in the Sacrament which is in Heaven yet he could not but know that the Asserters of it were very many and still are even since the Declaration and such as may be presumed to know the meaning of it as cunningly worded as it is as well if not better than himself and for this besides what I have had by particular converse with divers I will appeal to the sincerity of those who have heard the Determinations which
how this can be since the accidents or outward species of Bread still remain I desire them to resolve these Questions How a thousand species can be reflected from the same Glass at once to a thousand Eyes at the same time How the same Glass being whole transmits one intire species and yet broken into many small pieces every piece reflects the same whole and intire species there being all the while but one subject and what that subject is wherein these species do subsist Or let them but give a true account of the nature of any small Particle of that matter which composeth the Vniverse before they pry too far into the secrets of Divine and supernatural Mysteries and think that God can do nothing but in such a manner as they can comprehend Therefore our Adversaries had good reason to say speaking concerning the Objections against the Trinity Incarnation and the Resurrection with identity of Bodies That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation as of those then this Argument were good and that if it were possible to bring a thousand more Arguments against Transubstantiation yet that we are to believe the Revelation in despite of them all Again That Those who believe the Trinity in all those Niceties of Explications which are in the Schools and which now a days pass for the Doctrin of the Church believe them with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagin'd to be in the Point of Transubstantiation And do not therefore insist upon the Point how far Reason is to be submitted to Divine Authority in case of certainty that there is a Divine Revelation for what they are to believe And that there are things haud pauca not few in number which we all believe that if human Reason be consulted do not seem less impossible and less manifestly contradictory than Transubstantiation it self Now that the words of our Lord This is my Body being understood in a proper Sense as in the ensuing Answer is prov'd they ought to be do necessarily infer Transubstantiation is manifest Because as is allowed by all that was Bread which our Lord took into his hands before he spoke those Words there must therefore a Change be made otherwise it could not Really become Christs Body nor that which he gave his Disciples be in a proper Sense so called And the Accidents or sensible species still remaining as before the change must be made in the substance This is what the Tridentine Council infers in these Words Because Christ our Redeemer did affirm that truly to be his Body which he offer'd under the species of Bread therefore it was ever believed in the Church of God which also the Holy Synod now again Declares that by the Consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a Conversion made of the whole substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of our Lord Christ and of the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood which Conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church fitly and properly called Transubstantiation The foregoing Inference will evidently appear to be true if we consider the proper and genuin Sense of every particular Word in that Proposition of our Lord This is my Body This here in its true and proper Sense signifies some Thing Essence Substance or Object in general under such an appearance as was Demonstrated to Sense For if by the word This were exprest the whole Nature of the Predicate in such a Proposition e. g. as This is Bread or This is my Body then the Proposition would be purely Identical or Tautological for it would be no more than if one should say This Bread is Bread or This my Body is my Body Whereas it is the property of the Attribute to extend and fully to determin the Idea of the Subject by adding clearness to it And we must remember that the English word This is exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Original Greek here as also in most other Languages not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Masculine Gender so as to agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread. Now tho' there be no distinction as to the Gender in the English word This Yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Bread as our Adversaries would have here meant is false Grammar In like manner the Word Is hath here it's proper Sense not as it is used sometimes for Signifies The Word My can have Relation to no other Person but our Lord who spoke it nor consequently to any other Body but his own truly so as to it's Substance and therefore truly exprest by the Word Body that which was before Bread at the beginning of the Enunciation This is my Body being now made to be his Body at its Conclusion because in Practical Propositions as this is with God to say and to do are the same thing and thus you see what is meant by each word in the Proposition This is my Body as explicated by Catholics tho' you do not believe the Mystery Let us now observe what a Late Expostulator hath said against this Explication He undertakes to prove that the Words This is my Body cannot be taken in a literal I conceive he means proper in opposition to Figurative Sense which he supposes his Enemies themselves of our Party will grant if he proves that the This here mentioned is Bread which he thus undertakes to do That saith he which our Saviour took into his Hands when he was about the Institution was Bread that which he blessed was the same thing that he had taken into his hands that which he brake was the same thing that he had blessed that which he gave them when he said it was his Body was that which he had broken But that which he broke which he blessed which he took into his hands was Bread Therefore it was Bread which he gave his Disciples and by This is meant This Bread. This Induction saith the Expostulator is so fair and so clear that I am sure you cannot evade it But what Sir if after all your mighty boasting This prove to be neither a fair Induction nor any Argument at all but a mere Fallacy or Illusion proceeding from what Logicians call Ignoratio Elenchi Ignorance of Argument or proof And just such a one as This would be if proposed to you That which the Butcher exposed to Sale was raw Flesh that which you bought was the same thing that the Butcher exposed to Sale that which you Eat was the same thing that you bought But that which you bought which the Butcher expos'd to Sale was raw Flesh therefore you Eat raw Flesh The Kitchin-Boy will tell you where the Fallacy lies and help you out at a dead lift But to make the matter yet more plain I shall give you some other instances in your way of Sophistry which the most ignorant at the first
hearing will discover to be Fallacies That which the Servants at the Marriage of Cana in Galiee took from the Fountain was Water that which they poured into the Water-pots was the same that they took from the Fountain that which the Guests drank was the same that the Servants put into the Water-pots But that which the Servants took from the Fountain which they poured into the Pots was Water therefore it was Water which the Guests drank Or your Argument may in a shorter way be turn'd against you thus That which Christ took into his hands he gave But that which he took into his hands was not Sacramental Bread nor virtually Christs Body therefore that which he gave was not Sacramental Bread nor virtually Christs Body And now repeating your Argument truly tho' without all your heap of words I shall expose it's Fallacy plainly That you say which Christ took c. he gave but he took Bread therefore he gave Bread. I distinguish the Major That he took he gave unchanged or in the same manner he took it I deny What he took he gave changed and made his Body I grant and so agreeing he took Bread I deny your Consequence Look into your Logic again observe it well and you will find that to make a Proposition contradictory to ours viz. That that which Christ gave was his Real Body you must observe the Rules of your Master Aristotle so as to speak de eodem modo eodem tempore which you have not here known how to do Yet you for all this would be esteemed the Great Champion for the Protestant cause and boast that this your matter and Argument is so Demonstrative that you cannot but stand amazed that Men who pretend to reason can refuse it This pretended Demonstration might be much more exposed had I leasure whilst I am discoursing upon so serious a point to insist upon trifles Neither would the Remarks which he afterwards makes help him in the least For tho' our Saviour did say according to St. Luke and St. Paul This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood yet this passage doth not fully determin that by This is my Body is meant This Bread is my Body For the word This in the Proposition This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood being joyned with the word Cup by a known Figure to signifie in a General way what is contained in the Cup only makes the Proposition to Signifie That which is contained in the Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which in the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Mark is exprest by these words This is my Blood of the New Testament so that the word This still altho' joyned to Cup hath no other kind of signification than it hath in the Words This is my Body as I have before explained them Also if it had the Sense which the Author of the Expostulatory Letter would give it then the meaning would be This Wine is the New Testament in my Blood or as according to St. Matthew and St. Mark This Wine is my Blood of the New Testament which words in the Sense that our Adversaries put upon them would in those circumstances wherein they were spoken have been contrary to the Rules of Human Discourse suitably to what is shew'd in the ensuing Answer concerning the Words This is my Body taken in their Sense The Adversary indeed in This Expostulatory Letter insolently Triumphs because he hath found out some mistakes in Translating c. But his Answer to the Fathers Authorities which have been so often truly cited as an undeniable Evidence against his Party will easily be shew'd to be unsatisfactory when we come to their proper place and he so slightly attacks as you have seen our main Evidence the proper Sense of our Lords words as hardly to bring the face of an Argument against it So we Read that a Humorsom Emperor when he came to invade Great Britain only gather'd Cockles and yet for this he demanded Triumph in a Letter to his Senators thinking his Shell-spoils worthy Offerings for the Capitol We have one Request now to make to those who oppose the Doctrin of Transubstantiation That because it is necessary for an Answerer to know distinctly what the Persons mean to whom he is to make an Answer they would deal sincerely with us and since we have told them in what Sense every word in the Proposition This is my Body is taken by us and how the Catholic Church doth necessarily infer Transubstantiation from them they would now deal as candidly with us and tell us as plainly as we have done how they understand each of these words I have reason to intreat this favor of them because altho' they seem sometimes to maintain only a Vertual not Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament which Opinion of theirs I have chiefly opposed in the Ensuing Answer yet at othertimes they and even the Discourser himself readily acknowledge a Great Supernatural change to be made by the Divine Benediction and the Author of the Expostulatory Letter hath a Reserv'd Distinction of Christs Natural and Spiritual Flesh and Blood seeming to allow that Christ hath a Spiritual Body in the Sacrament We know not but that he intends the same which the Learned Author of a Brief Discourse of the Real Presence hath lately given us of two Bodies of Christ the one Natural in which he was Crucified the other Spiritual belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life or Spirit which goes along with the Divine Body of this Life or Spirit of Christ and consequently is rightly call'd his Body For this he grounds himself upon that earnest lofty and sublime Discourse as he calls it of our Saviour in the 6th Chapter of St. John confessing ingenuously that it seems to him incredible that under so lofty mysterious a style and earnest asseverations of what he affirms tho' to the scandal both of the Jews and his own Disciples there should not be couched some most weighty and profound Truth concerning some Real Flesh and Blood of his touching which this vehement and sublime Discourse is framed pa. 40. And than again pa. 42. and 43. It is plain says he that our Saviours Discourse in that Chapter has for its Object or Subject not the manner or way of receiving his Body and Blood as if meant of that very Body and Blood on the Cross to be receiv'd in a Spiritual manner which Interpreters several of them meaning of the Reformers drive at and which he thinks would be a very dilute and frigid Sense of such high and fervid asseverations of our Saviour but the Object of his Discourse says he is his very Flesh and Blood it self to be taken as the Fish and Loaves were wherewith he lately fed them or it is himself in reference to his Flesh and Blood which belongs to him as he is the
Eternal Logos Thus evidently did our Saviour seem to this Learned Man to speak all along to the very end of his Discourse of a Really Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood and not of the manner of Eating as if it never came nigh them but only they thought of Flesh and Blood God knows how far distant from them and so Eat the human Flesh of Christ by meer thinking of it and Drank his Blood after the same imaginary manner Thus to avoid the Catholic Tenent of Transubstantiation which he could bear no more than the Jews and yet verifie the Words of Christs Bodies being receiv'd verily and indeed and such other Expressions found in the Catechism and Homelies of the Church of England which he thought himself bound to maintain he was driven to distinguish a double Body of Christ the one Human and Natural the other Spiritual and Divine but both Real as has been said before Good God what Chimera's will not a mind preoccupated with Error frame to it self rather than submit to the Truth Luther indeed tells us of about ten Opinions of the Sacramentarians in his time and a Book was Publisht in the Year 1527 in which were reckon'd no less than 200 several Expositions of the Sense of these words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body What we would gladly know of our ADversaries with whom we have now to deal is which of these now two hundred and one Opinions it is that they maintain or whether they have any other yet in store for Error hath no End different from all these For surely after all they must be forc'd to allow that there is but one True Sense of our Saviours Words viz. either that it is his very true Substantial Body which is taken and received or a figure only what vertue soever they please to assign to it If the former they fall in with the Catholics or Dr. Moors Tenet if the latter what Vertue soever they assign to a Figure it is not the Real Body nor the Body Really Present Let them speak plain that the World may understand them The Faithful are not to be deluded with Ambiguities in a Point of so great concern to their Immortal Souls Reader be pleased to observe concerning the manner and Method of the Ensuing Treatise and Answer that the Discourse against Transubstantiation is faithfully here reprinted Section by Section and a Reply made to the Sections in their Order Also that because the Discourser against Transubstantiation would delude unwary Christians by making them believe that Catholics have no proof for this Doctrin from Scripture this first Part which is chiefly concerning Scripture Authority is publisht by it self to be consider'd distinctly to which in convenient time the Second Part is to be added Some ERRATA'S to be Corrected Pag. 18. in Marg. for Preface read Introduction p. 27. last line read under the species p. 42. in the Hebrew Citation read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bis p. 60. read Relicks Observe that in the Marginal Notes p. 43. 56 58 63. the word infra hath relation to the Second Part of the Answer which is not yet Published Transubstantiation DEFENDED In Answer to a Treatise Intitled A Discourse against Transubstantiation DISCOURSE Concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper one of the two great positive Institutions of the Christian Religion there are two main Points of difference between Us and the Church of Rome One about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in which they think but are not certain that they have the Scripture and the words of our Saviour on their side The other about the administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds in which we are sure that we have the Scripture and our Saviour's Institution on our side and that so plainly that our Adversaries themselves do not deny it ANSWER COncerning the Sacrament of Union the Lord's Supper which is the chief of those several positive Institutions of Religion which Christ hath Ordained in his Church there are many great differences even between Protestants themselves it is no wonder therefore if there are as many between Protestants and Catholics Of these the Author gives two instances the one about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the other about the Administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds As for that of Transubstantiation he would have done well to have told us in what supposition he means to take the Word in his Discourse If he suppose the True Real and Substantial Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament and take the Word Transubstantiation precisely as it signifies that Presence not with the Bread but by it's being chang'd into his Body this is a difference indeed and the only proper one in this supposition between him and Catholics in this matter But then if he would have proceeded sincerely and as one that was really Master of so much sense as he talks of in this Treatise he should have held to his Point and not impugned what he supposes but if he suppose no such Real or Substantial Presence of Christs Body and under the name of Transubstantiation fight expresly against the Real Presence through his whole Discourse as it is evident he doth and therefore ought to have call'd it a Discourse against the Real Presence and it's consequence Transubstantiation and not a Discourse only against Transubstantiation then the difference is not only as he would make it with the Catholics but with the Lutherans also and those of his own Communion as King James Bishop Andrews Mr. Thorndike and many others who profess'd to believe the Body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament no less truly than Catholics do But however he compose this difference with them yet the Catholics as for their Tenent do not think only as he says but are certain as I shall shew in the Process of this Discourse that they have the Words of our Saviour which they do not doubt to be Scripture on their side And for the other Point viz. the Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds they are sure that neither he nor any of his party have or ever can prove from the Scripture and our Saviours Institution that he laid a Command upon all the Faithful to receive it always in both kinds and this they constantly affirm But before I leave this Paragraph I cannot but desire the Reader to take notice of two things first That how sure soever the Author makes himself that he hath the Scripture and our Saviours Institution on his side yet his good friend Dr. Tillotson in his Rule of Faith which he makes Scripture only to be speaking in his own Name and that of his Party saith We are not Infallibly certain that any Book for example S. Matthew or any other of the Evangelists is so Ancient as it pretends to be or that it was Written by him whose Name it bears or that this is the sense of such
their true and adequate objects and the mind about those which are proper to it is rational But to advance sense above reason and even Faith it self the Beast above the Man and the Christian too as the Author doth is such a piece of stupidity as is not to be parallel'd DISCOURSE It might well seem strange if any Man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-bullet is not a Pike It is every whit as hard a case to be put to maintain by a long Discourse that what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread and not the Body of a Man and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine and not Blood And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof I do not see why any Man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the World sees it is not and this without all possibility of being farther confuted So that the business of Transubstantiation is not a controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture and all the Sense and Reason of Mankind ANSWER Here the Author like another Lucian renouncing the Christian Faith begins to ridicule the most Sacred Mystery of our Religion I confess I am very unwilling to follow him in such dirty way as he takes It is not at all suitable to the retiredness wherein our Devout minds should be entertained when we conceive of a thing so truly Divine to speak slightly I must intreat therefore the Candid Reader to abstract his thoughts wholly from the Blessed Sacrament at such time as any of this froth is cast back again upon the Author which I heartily wish he had spared me the pains of doing and that he had kept his Egg and his Elephant to himself The Analogy would have been more easily made out by those who maintain that Grace and Vertue are the Body and Blood of Christ verily and indeed received for so an Egg is vertually at least an Elephant if according to the principle of the Philosopher Omnia animalia generantur ex ovo every Animal is generated out of an Egg then by such as hold with the Catholic Church that the Sacrament is not Bread and Wine but what verily and indeed it is the Real Body and Blood of Christ Now how to change a Musket-bullet into a Pike I confess I know not The Dragoons better understand that piece of Martial exercise Howsoever I must needs acknowledge with the Author that it seems strange that any Man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-bullet is not a Pike therefore it is a thousand pities that so curious a Wit as his should be concern'd in so absurd an enterprise as he believes his to be And yet Good God what will not the confident presumption of some Men put them upon he undertakes a task fully as impossible to be performed as that and of infinitely more dangerous consequence to prove that not to be which by the power of God is really made to be in the Sacrament The Author knows that the Catholic Church grounds this wonderful change made in the Elements upon Divine Revelation which depends upon the Veracity of God So that it will not be so very hard a case to maintain by a discourse much shorter than this of the Author even our Lords Words of Institution that what we see and handle and taste as Bread is not Bread in substance but the Body of Christ and what we see and taste as Wine is not Wine in substance but the Blood of our Saviour And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any further proof I do not see why any Man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the World sees it is not since the Word of God is more Infallible than our senses and this without all possibility of being farther confuted for he that denies the Veracity of God can no ways conclude his senses to be veracious The denial then of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation is not a Controversy of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of down-right impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture and all the sense and reason of Mankind DISCOURSE It is a most Self-evident Falsehood and there is no Doctrin or Proposition in the World that is of it self more evidently true than Transubstantiation is evidently false And yet if it were possible to be true it would be the most ill natur'd and pernicious truth in the World because it would suffer nothing else to be true it is like the Roman-Catholic Church which will needs be the whole Christian Church and will allow no other Society of Christians to be any part of it So Transubstantiation if it be true at all it is all truth for it cannot be true unless our Senses and the Senses of all Mankind be deceived about their proper objects and if this be true and certain then nothing else can be so for if we be not certain of what we see we can be certain of nothing ANSWER The Doctrin of the real Presence or Transubstantiation is a Truth that is evident upon the Authority of the Revealer and there is no Opinion that the Author holds is more evidently false than this is evidently true For Faith is the evidence of things not seen Heb. 11. 1. and the best natur'd truth in the World it is which conveys us infinite blessings Which unless it be so we have no reason to believe any thing else to be true a Truth like that of the Catholic Church which unless it be that which hath lived in Communion with and just obedience to her chief Pastors especially St. Peter and his lawful Successors in the See of Rome then there hath been no true Church upon the face of the Earth For so the real Presence or Transubstantiation unless it be true we cannot be assured of any truth It must be so if God be veracious that is unless what he reveals be false since the very truth of our Senses and all our Faculties depends upon his Veracity and if we be not certain of what he hath revealed though it seem to contradict our Senses we are certain of nothing DISCOURSE And yet notwithstanding all this there is a Company of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable Error and to impose the belief of it upon the Christian World under no less penalties than of temporal death and eternal damnation And therefore to undeceive if possible these
deluded Souls it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a Doctrin and to lay open the monstrous Absurdity of it ANSWER And yet notwithstanding all this there is a Sect of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as confidently to deny this revealed truth and to impose this strange Negative Article of Faith of theirs That in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after Consecration by any person whatsoever under no less penalties than the temporal loss of their Estates and Livelihoods the loss of their Lives the formal renouncing of the Catholic Faith and Religion which is dearer to them than their Lives and consequently Eternal damnation Therefore to undeceive which we hope is possible these deluded Souls it will be necessary to shew the real grounds upon which Transubstantiation is built that so the monstrous absurdity of the contrary Doctrin may be made to appear DISCOURSE And in the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin II. I shall produce our Objections against it And if I can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it and that there are invincible Objections against it then every man is not only in reason excused from believing this Doctrin but hath great cause to believe the contrary FIRST I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin Which must be one or more of these five Either 1st The Authority of Scripture Or 2ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviour's words This is my Body in this Sense Or 3ly The Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith. Or 4ly The absolute necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5ly To magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle 1st They pretend for this Doctrin the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour This is my Body Now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence I shall endeavour to make good these two things 1. That there is no necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation 2. That there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise ANSWER In the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the Catholic Church for this Doctrin II. I shall weigh the Objections which the Author makes against it And if I can shew that there is a real ground for it and that the Objections against it are weak and inconsiderable then every man is not only in reason obliged to believe it but hath great cause to reject the contrary First I shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the Catholic Church for this Doctrin Which are at least these five 1st The Authority of Scripture 2ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviours words This is my Body in this Sense Or 3ly The Authority of the Church in every Age to declare propose and exhibit when by misinterpretation of Heretics they are forc'd to it a more explicit Sense of the Ancient Articles of our Faith. Or 4ly The infinite Mercy and condescension of God to operate such a change as this for the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5ly The just dignity of the Priest whom God is pleas'd to make use of as his Minister for the working so miraculous a change 1st The Catholic Church hath always grounded the Doctrin of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation upon the Authority of Divine Revelation in these words of our Saviour This is my Body Now to shew the validity of this Proof I shall endeavour to make good these two things I. That there is a necessity of understanding these words of our Saviour in the Sense of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation From whence it will necessarily follow II. That there is no reason at all for the understanding them otherwise DISCOURSE First That there is no necessity to understand those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation If there be any it must be from one of these two Reasons Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture which I think no man ever yet said or else because a Sacrament admits of no figures which would be very absurd for any man to say since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure And especially since it cannot be denied but that in the institution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally When he gave the Cup he said This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Where first the Cup is put for Wine contained in the Cup or else if the words by literally taken so as to signifie a substantial change it is not of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the Blood of Christ but into the New Testament or new Covenant in his Blood. Besides that his Blood is said then to be shed and his Body to be broken which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first celebration of this Sacrament ANSWER First That there is a necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the Sense of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation For these two Reasons 1. Because although there be many figurative expressions in Scripture which all men allow yet this in relation to the Case in hand is not such 2. Although a Sacrament admits of Figures which no man is so absurd as to deny since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward Sign and Figure Yet the Figure doth not lie where the Author pretends it doth The Rule which men ought to observe in their discourse in relation to Figures is this That a Figure should not be used which the Auditor doth not easily apprehend to be so To compare therefore a Figure which all the World can easily understand to be so with an expression which no man can Construe to be a Figure according to the Rules of human Discourse is very absurd Yet such is the Authors instance from Scripture From whence he alledgeth that when our Saviour gave the Cup he
vertue of it as Protestants do since it is clear from all their Writings that they did hold it as proved from Scripture Altho I might have saved my self the trouble of clearing this point so largely had I not thought it convenient rather for the vindication of these Writers whom the Author hath so grosly abused than for the defending the Doctrin of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation For what if seven Authors should before the Solemn Declaration of the Church have denied it to be necessarily proved from Scripture tho' really they have not Are there not seventy times seven of another mind Were not the Arian Bishops the Semi-Pelagians and other Heretics who at several times oppos'd the Articles of the Christian Faith vastly more numerous And the Author knows that Catholic Christians are not to rely upon the Judgment of any inconsiderable number of private Doctors Opinions concerning the Sense of an Article of Religion but upon the Judgment of the generality of Catholic Fathers which is discerned in their Writings and in the Decisions of the most General Councils and in the constant and general Tradition of the Church DISCOURSE Secondly If there be no necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the Sense of Transubstantiation I am sure there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise Whether we consider the like Expressions in Scripture as where our Saviour says he is the Door and the true Vine which the Church of Rome would mightily have triumph'd in had it been said This is my true Body And so likewise where the Church is said to be Christ's Body and the Rock which follow'd the Israelites to be Christ 1 Cor. 10. 4. They drank of that rock which follow'd them and that rock was Christ All which and innumerable more like Expressions in Scripture every Man understands in a Figurative and not in a strictly Literal and absurd Sense And it is very well known that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie and represent and there is not in that Language a more proper and usual way of expressing a thing to signifie so and so than to say that it is so and so Thus Joseph Expounding Pharaoh's Dream to him Gen. 41. 26. says The seven good Kine are seven years and the seven good Ears of Corn are seven years that is they signifi'd or represented seven years of plenty and so Pharaoh understood him and so would any Man of Sense understand the like Expressions nor do I believe that any sensible Man who had never heard of Transubstantiation being grounded upon these words of our Saviour This is my Body would upon reading the Institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel ever have imagin'd any such thing to be meant by our Saviour in those words but would have understood his meaning to have been this Bread signifies my Body this Cup signifies my Blood and this which you see mee now do do ye hereafter for a Memorial of me But surely it would never have entred into any man's Mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his Hand and give away himself from himself with his own Hands ANSWER Secondly Since there is a necessity of understanding our Saviours words in the Sense of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation I am sure there can be no reason given to understand them otherwise For if we consider the expressions which the Author produceth out of Scripture as resembling these they are so far from being like them that from thence we shall prove the quite contrary to what the Author alledgeth them for Therefore to reduce this Head of Discourse to some Method I shall first lay down the Principles by which it is to be governed that I may the better afterwards draw my Conclusion 1. Christ ever spake reasonably and in a manner conformable to good Sense nothing escaping him through imprudence or mistake 2. His Power infinitely exceeds the capacity of our minds therefore it is against reason that we should confine it to the narrow bounds of our understanding or pretend that God cannot do what we cannot conceive 3. When the Sense of the words which Christ speaks if taken properly is not contradictory to Right Reason tho' above it and the Rules of human Discourse oblige us to take these words in the proper Sense then we are not to doubt of the Truth of them as so taken That we may the better apply these Principles and the ensuing Discourse to the Case in hand I shall endeavor to State it as precisely as may be and draw it into as narrow a compass as I can Christ in the Institution of the Blessed Sacrament said THIS IS MY BODY Which words Those of the English Church that do not believe the Presence of Christs Real Body in the Sacrament yet Attribute the efficacy thereof to the due Reception of the Sacramental Elements and I will Charitably suppose the Author to be one of these interpret thus This thing which you see to be Bread in Substance is a Sign of my Real Body wherein the vertue of my Body tho' it self be absent is contained or whereunto this vertue is conjoyned or together with which it is exhibited which several sorts of expressions I am forc't to use that I may by some of them reach that Sense which they have not yet sufficiently explained Catholics thus This thing which by the means of your Senses is represented to the mind under the Species or Appearance of Bread is my Body in Substance In these Explications I say that by This in the Proposition This is my Body is meant this thing because this is a Pronoun Demonstrative that doth not express any particularly determinate and distinct Nature or Substance For it may be applied to any thing that is the object of Sense or of pure Understanding when it is but confusedly represented to the mind As we say pointing to a person before us This is John or this is Thomas pointing to an Animal we say This is a Lamb this is a Dove after we have discoursed of the nature of the Soul we may say of Cogitation conceiving it in our minds This is the property of the Soul. But because it would be great rashness of judgment and that which is strictly called prejudice to conclude fully of the nature of any thing which another that is presumed to know it better than we do should be shewing to us before he hath fully pronounced his Proposition by which he is to discover it's nature As for instance if any one holding up a Gilt Shilling or a Counterfeit Guiny should be about to inform us truly that this was but a Shilling or a Counterfeit piece of Gold which notwithstanding appeared to the Senses like Gold we should rashly conclude before he tells us fully what it is he shews us that it is a true piece of Gold Or on the other hand if any
inferreth Transubstantiation 61 28. The Conclusion of this Head of Discourse upon Scripture Authority for the Real Presence and Transubstantiation and of the first Part of the Answer to the Discourse against Transubstantiation 63 FINIS * Publisht at Dublin a Mr. Arnauds two last Volums concerning the Perpetuity of the Faith c. b Pa. 42. Of the Discourse against Transubstantiation Resp ad Apol. Bell. c. 7. p. 11. * Vid. Two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our Blessed Saviour in the Eucharist c. c. 2. of the first Discourse Printed at Oxford An 1687. * Dr. Burnet in his History of the Reformation Part 2. p. 390. Of the Reign of Qu. Elizabeth See also Dr. Heylins Cyprianus Anglicus p. 22. in the Introduction * Part 2. of Hist Reform p. 405. * In Psal 98. * Can. 6. de Eucharistia in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum unigenitum Dei filium cultu Latriae adorandum * In a Treatise intitled several Conferences c. a Pag. 65. * See their 28 Art. of Religion which confirms the Body of Christ to be given taken and eaten in the Supper after an Heavenly and Spiritual manner and Catec where it is said the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and in deed taken and received The forecited Author doth not well defend this Doctrin * Sess 13. c. 1. Neque enim haec inter se pugnant juxta modum existendi naturalem Salvatorem nostrum in coelis assidere ad dextram Patris nobis substantiâ suā adesse praesentem Sacramentaliter eâ existendi ratione quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus possibilem lamen esse Deo cogitatione per fidem illustratâ assequi possumus * Paschasius Epist ad Frudegard Miror quid volunt quidem nunc dicere non in re esse veritatem carnis Christi vel Sanguinis sed in Sacramento virtutem quandam carnis non carnem concerning which Real Presence it is said Vsque ad praesens nemo deerrasse legitur nisi qui de Christo erraverunt and futher Quamvis ex hoc quidam de ignorantia errent nemo tamen est adhuc in aperto qui hoc ita esse contradicat quod totus orbis credit confitetur * De Christo loquens Concilium eujus corpus sanguis in Sacramento altaris sub speciebus panis vini veraciter continentur Transubstantiatis pane in Corpus vino in sanguinem potestate Divinâ Concil Lateranense 4. Generale Anno Christi 1215. vid. in Binnio c. 1. p. 806. * Historia Concil Triden Francofurti Edit 1521. lib. 4. pa. 367. In Congregatione mox Generali Statutum in dogmate conficiendo verbis uti quam paucissimis iisque adeo universalibus ut uirisque viz. Scoti Thomae Sectatoribus quaent satisfacere ad uiriusque partis sensum commodè aptari a In parte seconda del Istoria del Concilio di Trento l. 12. cap. primo Speaking of the Definitions of the Council hath these words Le quali tutte sono cosi circuspette che tolora paiono in cercar forme di parole lontane da ogni sembianza di pregiudicio à veruna delle Classi Teologiche E percio niente si volle determinare intorno al modo della presenza Sacramentale di Cristo b Praesentiam credimus nec minus quam vos veram de modo praesentiae nihil temerè definimus addo nec anxie inquiramus Bishop Andrews Resp ad Apoll. Bell. c. 1. p. 11. 1 Cor. 15. 38. * Vt enim illic verbi Dei gratia sanctum efficit illud corpus cujus firmamentum ex pane constabat ipsum etiam quodammodo panis erat sic etiam hic panis ut ait Apostolus per verbum Dei orationem Sanctificatur non quia comeditur eo progrediens ut verbi corpus evadat sed statim per verbum in corpus mutatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut dictum est à verbo hoc est corpus meum Catecbet Orat. c. 37. a Dr. Taylor of the Real Presence pa. 237. b Idem Liberty of Prophecying §. 20. n. 16. c Dr. Stillingfleet Rat. account p. 117. and 565. d Bishop Forbes p. 395. Vid. etiam confessionem Theologorum Wirtemberg in Confess A. 1552. * Sess 13. de Euchar. c. 4. Quoniam autem Christus Redemptor noster corpus suum id quod subspecie panis offerebat verè esse dixit ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit idque nunc sancta haec Synodus declarat per Consecrationem Panis Vini conversionem fieri totius substantiae panis in substantiam Corporis Christi Domini nostri totius substantiae vini in substantiam sanguinis ejus quae Conversio convenienter propriè à Sanctae Catholica Ecclesia Transubstantiatio est appellata * See also p. 26 27. of the Answer * See Veteres Vindicati in an Expostulatory Letter to Mr. Sclater of Putney pa. 57. * Observe that this is no Induction but rather a Sorites altho' the Author knew not how to put the Subject and Predicate in their right places See any Common Logic. * See Expostulatory Letter pa. 58. * Pag. 33. c. * Ipse panis vinum transmutantur in corpus Sanguinem Dei. Nec quicquam nobis amplius perspectum exploratum est quam quod verbum Dei verum est efficax atque omnipotens S. Johan Damascen lib. 3. Orthodox fidei c. 14. a Caligula * See p. 11. In the Discourse against Transubstantiation Edit Londini 1684. * Pag. 102. A Brief Discourse of the Real Presence Printed 1686. and Licenc'd by Guil. Needham Archiep. Cant. à Sac. Domest * Viz. The Author of the Brief Discourse c. cited supra Our Adversary doth not rightly State the Point See two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the Sacrament Printed at Oxford 1687. Pag. 1. 8. What is meant by Transubstantiation a S. Augustin Putaverunt quod praecisurus esset Dominus particulas quasdam de corpore suo daturus illis dixerunt durus est hic sermo ipsi erant duri non sermo in Psal 98. adorate scabellum c. The argument from sense shew'd to be senseless * Quod vidistis panis est calix quod vobis etiam oculi vestri renunciant quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda panis est corpus Christi calix Sanguis ejus Augustinus Serm ad infant The Catholic Faith ridiculd by the Adversary The Real Presence depends on Gods Veracity No-transubstantiation an Article of Faith with our Adversaries and establisht with Penalties See the Penal Laws and Tests The Method of the ensuing Discourse The necessity of understanding our Lords words in the Sense of the Real Presence Luke 22. 20. * hoc Simulachrum est virgo quod filium Dei peperit * Solecophanes * Contra Westphal Hoc quidem saepe diximus quod nunc quoque repetam retineri