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
AN ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE AGAINST Transubstantiation Hic est Filius meus dilectus Ipsum audite This is my beloved Son Hear ye Him Matth. 17. 5. Permissu Superiorum LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chapel 1687. Introduction IF public Applause and popular Acclamations of your own Party are to be believed your Discourse against Transubstantiation has sufficiently shewed that the Scriptures cannot clearly demonstrate this miraculous Change nor the perpetual belief thereof in the Christian Church illustrate it and that there are all the reasons in the World against it Yet if a serious consideration and weighing of your Arguments in the Scale of Justice be the Deciders of the present Debate we shall find neither Scripture nor belief of the Primitive Church nor any reason in the World against Transubstantiation And therefore in Christian Duty I think my self obliged to endeavor after my poor manner a discovery of your winning Artifices and a removal of your plausible Appearances dividing this following Answer into two Parts In my first I 'll examin whether there be any tolerable ground for Transubstantiation And my second is designed to counterpoise as you think your Invincible Objections PART I. I Sub-divide my First Part into five Sections comprehending the five pretended grounds one or more of which you suppose the Church of Rome builds this Doctrin on First The Authority of Scripture Or Secondly the perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church Or Thirdly the Authority of the Church to make or declare an Article of Faith. Or Fourthly the absolute Necessity of such a Change for the benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or Fifthly to magnify the Power of the Priest SECT I. Whether Scripture authorise Transubstantiation BEfore I begin to discuss whether Scripture authorise Transubstantiation I think it convenient to premise two Reflections upon two considerable Circumstances delivered in your Introduction First Reflection upon the word Transubstantiation In the very first entrance of your Discourse you complain it is a hard word and afterwards increase your complaint with this unparallel'd exaggeration It was almost 300 years before this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation could be lick'd into that Form in which it is now setled and established in the Church of Rome Bold Assertions ought to be supported with great Proofs And Monstrous Vilifications of the Divine Goodness expiated with more than ordinary Repentance Heaven forbid that our Blessed Saviour should ever prove a mishapen Monster even to those who most oppose revealed Truth expressed in Transubstantiation A hard word and who can endure it a new word and who will admit it St. Hilary answers you in this Reply to the Arian Heretics importuning the primitive Church of Christ with the like expressions Say rather if you speak wisely will you not wage new Wars against new Enemies or take fresh Counsels against new Treasons or drink Counterpoison against venomous Infections Nor was St. Athanasius's Interrogation of less force Are you offended at the newness of the Name or affraid of the verity of the Mystery The sentiment of these two great Ornaments of the Church is the common Practice of whole Sacred Antiquity according to the Golden Sentence of Vincentius Lyrinensis The Church ordinarily appropriates some new term to signifie more pathetically the true Sense of Faith. Thus did the first Oecumenical Council write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantial and the Arians could not digest the hardness of the Word Thus did the Ephesian Prelates stile the B. Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of God which was no softer to the Nestorians And thus did the Lateran Bishops subcribe to Transubstantiation and the Berengarians and Modern opposers of the Roman truth expostulate with us for this Word and modestly term it a Mishapen Monster Second Reflection upon the Evidence of Sense Here you bring in Aristotle who long since hath pronounced There ought to be no dispute of the matter of Sense I beg Pardon if I am not at leisure to digress with you towards Paganism Neither can I think you serious when you quote the Philosopher's determination for the Mystery of the Lords Supper who never professed a revealed Religion and died many Hundred years before Christianity was Promulgated and Established Nor do I apprehend the least danger to be overburden'd with the heavy matter of Sense when my way leads to the Sublime matter of Revelation You cannot deny Sense Reason and Faith are three various Perfections so likewise are their Objects distinguished The Stagyrite never pretended Sense should reach farther than to the Accidents and Appearance of things And Reasons employ was the contemplation of Essence Nature and Substance How could Aristotle pronounce the matter of Sense was never to be disputed when 't was always to be pry'd into and regulated by Reason Yet we do not dispute with you the Prerogative of Sense in the Mystery of the Sacrament For we see the outward shape and appearance of Bread and Wine nor is Tast wanting All this is granted Unless then you perplex and embroil the Question Sense reposes without violation quiet and contented in its own Objects Nor ought you to believe that Reason can securely without Error always determin in Natural Sciences according to the received impression from the visible Sign or Object of Sense This Maxim is given to Novices entring the list of Dialecticks and admitted by the Sect of Peripateticks So Reason enlarges the greatness of the Sun and assures us it far exceeds in bigness the Terrestrial Orb tho' Sense inclose it in the small circumference of a Ball. Sense indeed and Reason combining together and following the prescript of Logick are the proper deciders of Philosophical contestations Sense pleads for no more and if the Reason of Aristotle surviv'd it would be abundantly satisfi'd with this voluntary concession If for all this you resolve to seat Reason in the Chair of Judicature even where Revelation intervenes Divine Authority will easily rescue Christian Religion from the information of Sense Reason following the Dictamen of outward existence told Abraham what appeared were Men Revelation corrected the mistake and assured him they were Angels Reason affirmed what descended in the shape of a Dove was that Innocent Creature Revelation reformed the Judgment and intimated it was the Holy Ghost Reason regards the Species of Bread as inherent to the proper Substance Revelation changes that Substance into the Body of Christ Abraham saw the figure and shape of Men and yet the Substance of Man was wanting The Feathers in appearance exhibited a Dove the real Substance was supply'd with the presence of the Holy Ghost Again it was a Maxim of Philosophy what is was from something And this Evidence vanishes at the sight of Revelation which teaches the whole Universe was Created of nothing 'T was a Principle There 's no return from
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
St. Paul proves quite the contrary demonstrating if there be a Testament there must be true Blood and so concludes Whereupon neither the first Testament was dedicated without Blood and without sheding of Blood is no remission Lastly You urge besides his Blood which is said to be shed which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first Celebration of this Sacrament We do not dispute with you the actual effusion of Christ's natural Blood which was a sanguinary Sacrifice But can you deny that in those words you alledge from St. Luke where Christ's Blood is said to be shed is contained a mystical Sacrifice St. Austin calls this the Oblation of Christ's Body on the Altar St. Cyprian four times in the same Epistle the Dominical Sacrifice St. Gregorie Nazianzen the unbloody Sacrifice Two Sacrifices we acknowledge with the holy Fathers different in manner not distinct in substance The same Blood spilt naturally once upon the Cross and mystically offered daily on the Altar Because the same Caracteristical mark of true Blood is attributed to both the Sacrifices Viz. the remission of Sins by effusion of Blood. Hence St. Matthew speaking of Christ's Blood in the Sacrament says that it is shed for many for remission of sins And St. Paul in the foregoing lines without sheding of Blood is no remission Article II. Examen of your Second Proof YOU are willing to stand in the second instance to the plain concession of many learned Roman Catholic Writers concerning the necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation And because you begin with the concession of the acute Schoolman let us examin what was the opinion of Scotus Scotus distinguishing two sorts or Classes of People the worthy and unworthy Receivers thus delivers himself It is undoubtedly to be held the Good not only Sacramentally but also Spiritually receive the Bad only Sacramentally that is subjoyns Scotus under the visible species the Flesh of Christ that Flesh which was born of the Virgin Mary they do not mystically receive the benefit of the Sacrament This he proves from St. Gregorie the Great 's determination the true Flesh and true Body of Christ is received by Sinners and unworthy Communicants in essence not in benefit Then Scotus quotes St. Austin for the same evidence and concludes with the testimony of St. Paul to the same purpose This acute Schoolman asking afterwards q. 3. whether the Bread be changed into the Body of Christ Answers num 13. that it is changed into the Body of Christ 'T is true he brings in one objecting n. 4. n. 7. that our Saviour's Words may receive a more facile Sense than that of Transubstantiation And Scotus replies the more difficile sense is not to be admitted if it be not true but if it be true and can be proved evidently to be so then the more difficile ought to be chosen and this is the case of the present Article He pushes on the resumpt But why did the Church prefer the more difficile sense when she might have chosen a more facile in appearance I answer says Scotus the Scriptures are expounded by the same Spirit by which they were dictated and 't is to be supposed the Catholic Church expounded them by the same Spirit by which truth is delivered taught by the Spirit of truth for it was not in the power of the Church to make that true but in the power of God the institutor Now what is this to your purpose For if you take the concession of Scotus you must profess both the real Presence and Transubstantiation And this necessarily deduc'd from Scripture Because the Scripture efficaciously moved the Church to declare for the same Doctrin according to Scotus's words it was not in the power of the Church to make that true or not true The Church then necessarily followed Scriptural evidence And what was necessarily compulsive to the Church was not otherwise to Scotus who tacitly intimated the cogent necessity of Scriptures Authority for the real change of the substance of Bread into the Body of Christ instancing it was determined by the Church for Transubstantiation Bellarmin was of Opinion that according to the two literal senses of this is my Body read in the acute School-man the sole evidence of Scripture could not in Scotus's mind abstracting from the declaration and universal practice of the Church evidently compel the admittance of Transubstantiation Bellarmin was severe enough upon Scotus Yet he diminished much this severity saying the acute Schoolman added because the Catholic Church has declared in a general Council the true meaning of Scripture Transubstantiation may manifestly be proved from Scripture so declared But of what mind Scotus was the foregoing Page will sufficiently remind the unprejudic'd Reader Nor can you conclude Bellarmin himself granted evidence of Scripture was wanting for the Roman Cause because he said Scotus's assertion was not altogether improbable In like manner you may argue against the strongest Demonstration in nature You may frankly concede an acute Objection not altogether improbable and notwithstanding this Concession stick fast to the former Evidence of your Demonstration This is Bellarmin's case as the following words out of the same place testifie For although adds Bellarmin Scripture which we have heretofore alledged may seem so clear to us that it can compel a moderate man ther 's evidence of Scripture for Transubstantiation and Bellarmin's opinion Yet the acuteness of bright understandings leaves some doubt This is what is not altogether improbable But we ought to reflect these words of Bellarmin not altogether Improbable are grounded upon a meer supposal of two literal Senses which touches not our Controversie For Bellarmin plainly denies a figurative Exposition probable of our Saviours words speaking of things as they are instituted For thus he argues These words this is my Body necessarily infer either the true change of Bread as Catholics believe or a metaphorical mutation as Calvinists contend This Calvinistical Sense he had already declared as improbable saying we will generally demonstrate that 't is not probable our Saviour would figuratively speak And for the Lutherans Error holding both substance of Bread and the Body together in the Sacrament he says it shares not in the sense of our Saviour's words Thus the true change of Bread into the Body of Christ naturally follows according to Bellarmin from the plain and evident Text of Scripture Durandus divides the substance of Bread into Matter and Form. Then adds the Bread is converted by conseration into the Body of our Lord and the Form perishing the Matter is animated with the Soul of Christ A strange manner of Explication But what doth this avail your cause For if the Form of Bread perishes in Durandus's explication and the Matter be animated with the Soul of Christ the remaining Accidents can neither claim Matter nor Form of Bread and so
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
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
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
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
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