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
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
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
have been made by their Learned Professors in the Publick Schools of both their Vniversities ever since this last Declaration was receiv'd whether they are not fully satisfied that they have been much more Positive for a Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament in a further Sense than the abovementioned Author and others in their Late Discourses against Transubstantiation declare themselves to be And I have the rather given the Sense before expressed of the last clause of their new Declaration which indeed is the only one it can truly bear because the Catholic Church Authoriseth it in the Council of Trent by Declaring there that these two things are not inconsistent viz. that Our Saviour according to his Natural way of Existing should sit at the Right hand of his Father in Heaven and that he should be in the substance Present to us Sacramentally by that manner of Existence which altho' it can scarcely be expressed in words yet our mind enlightened by Faith can be brought to conceive that it is possible with God. I hope therefore that Christian Charity may in time put a happy end to the tedious Disputes which have been so long held about the Blessed Sacrament that so the Sacred Symbols of Peace and Vnity may no longer be made the Subject of Contention Especially when we consider that tho' when the strange Opinion of there being only some certain Vertue of Christs Body in the Sacrament and not that very Body it self was first privately held about eight hundred and eighteen Years after our Saviours time by some Persons that erred through ignorance yet they were asham'd publickly to contradict as some in this last Age have done that Real Presence which the whole Christian World believ'd and confest and concerning which none had ever before erred in the Church but those who had erred concerning Christ himself Likwise that altho' the fourth Great Council of Lateran one of the Greatest which ever was held in the Christian World that they might put an end to the contentions then arisen and maintain Christian verity and peace amongst the Faithful did in declaring the Faith of the Church concerning the Blessed Sacrament make use of the word Transubstantiated to express precisely that Great and Supernatural change therein made which the Catholic Church had in all precedent Ages even from Christs time believed as being necessarily deduced from our Saviours words and exprest by the Primitive Fathers in several other terms signifying the same thing yet the Catholic Church thought it not necessary to determin any thing concerning those nicer speculations about the modes of this wonderful change which have exercised the more subtle Wits even before the time of the Lateran Council and ever since And of this excellent moderation used by the Catholic Church we have a clear evidence from the proceedings of the Council of Trent in reference to this matter which as Padre Paul himself notwithstanding he was no great friend to Catholics in his Historical Relations of the Proceedings of this Council relates determin'd to use so very few and those Universal terms in the Article of the Blessed Sacrament as might satisfie both Parties viz. the Scotists and Thomists and be fitly accommodated to the Sense of each of them but not so as to establish their distinct private speculations Cardinal Pallavicino likewise tells us speaking concerning the circumspection of the Tridentin Fathers that they would have nothing determin'd concerning the modus or manner of the Sacramental Presence of Christ So far were they from prejudicing either of the Theological Classes or from offering to declare those things as Articles of Faith which were not the Revelations of God but the speculations of Men. So that if we can agree that this great supernatural change is made in the Sacrament without the admission of which those of the English Church can never prove that Presence of Christs Body in the Holy Eucharist which they acknowledge to be no less true than we do they will be yet left at liberty and need not determin rashly concerning the manner of it nor so much as anxiously to inquire into this Point For indeed Transubstantiation is a great mystery of Christian Religion so is the Doctrin of the Trinity so is the Incarnation of our Lord to which the Primitive Fathers do so often compare the supernatural change made in the Sacrament so is the Resurrection of our Bodies yet these Articles of Christian Faith are to be believed upon the Authority of the Revealer and not too curiously to be pried into I shall insist only upon the Resurrection at present to shew how little ground they have to believe this upon the account of natural Reason who reject the belief of Transubstantiation by Vertue of which we receive the Instrument and pledge of our Resurrection Christs Real Body in the Sacrament Both these indeed may seem contrary to Reason before enlightned by Faith For how can that convince us that the same Body which dies shall rise again since some that eat Mans Flesh in the extremity of Famin or as the Cannibals out of luxury have the substance of the Bodies that they eat converted into the substance of their own Bodies by the way of nourishment And several other ways there be by which the reduced parts of our Dead Bodies are changed into the substance of other Human Bodies even so that the same Bodies may be claimed by many at the Resurrection Notwithstanding we believe that we shall rise with the same Bodies we had whilst living Dim sighted Reason will ask how this can be since it is against the Nature of a Body to be in two places at the same time Yet Nature and experience prepare us for the belief of the Resurrection which seems to be against Nature by the example of those things which are obvious to Sense Seed as the Apostle instanceth is cast into the ground it corrupts and yet riseth again for God giveth it a Body and to every Seed it 's own Body So to dispose us to the belief of the supernatural change made in the Sacrament nothing is more familiar than Natural Transubstantiation for our life is sustained by a dayly change of the substance of other Creatures into that of our Bodies we should soon die without this Nay we cannot breath but the substance of our Bodies is converted into Air and he that denies this Transubstantiation confutes himself while he speaks Thus Bread also was dayly Transubstantiated into our Lords Body whilst he fed upon it here on Earth All which may dispose us to believe that the Bread in the Sacramental Consecration as Gregory Nyssen teacheth us passeth into the Body of Christ the Word not indeed as it did by the way of manducation and nourishment but being suddainly transform'd into the Body of the Word as is said by the Word This is my Body And if our curious Inquirers shall further ask
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
for it where we shall see him immediately cast himself and be non-suited at the very beginning of his Trial. He tells us that the delivery of a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal is called a Conveyance or making over of such an Estate that is of a Title to such an Estate and that it really is so that we deny unless there be possession also given as I shall presently shew And yet what do we affirm more of Christs words in the Sacrament This is my Body which is given for you c. which we have taken from his own mouth by the Hands of inspired Pen-men Sealed by himself with Miracles and delivered to his Church than that they are a Conveyance or making over of his Sacred Body to us and that they are so really not only in Sign or Figure He proceeds to tell us That this Delivery of a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal is not the Delivery of mere Wax and Parchment but the conveyance of a Real Estate as truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the material Houses and Lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into my hands Well but we say that a Deed of Feoffment takes not effect to all purposes of Law without Livery and Seisin neither doth it convey an Estate without that nor a Deed of Release neither unless the Purchaser be put in Possession before hand by a Lease and then too not by the Common Law but so necessary is Possession deemed for the through Conveyance of an Estate that in case of absence from the Land or the like the Law-makers have by a particular Statute necessarily provided to give Possession otherwise for it is not necessary to the making a Man in Possession of an Estate that he should hold his Land and House in his Arms or stand always upon the Premises But I hope the Author will not so far endeavor to invalidate the Common Assurance of the Nation as to maintain that because the Man hath thus a Conveyance of a real Estate to all effects and purposes of Law therefore he must not enter upon it dwell in the House Reap the Fruits of the ground and nourish himself therewith I imagin the Purchaser will not be put off so In like manner the words of Christ delivered as his Act and Deed by the Priest his Substitute in the Consecration of the Sacrament for the use of those that are to Communicate is not the bare delivery of so many Words only but the making over of a real Title to them to the thing which is meant by them that is the Body of our Lord as truly and really to all effects and purposes of the Gospel as if it actually hung upon the Cross before their Eyes in that Form and with the same configuration and quality of parts as it once did Shall they therefore be hindred from taking immediate Possession of what is thus made over to them No this were too great a Sacriledge against God and violation of the property of a Christian They shall receive Christs Body and Blood that they may dwell in him and he in them They shall partake of the Fruits of the Sacrament as of a goodly Heritage of their own since Christ hath given them a just Right and Title to it and shall cherish their Souls and Bodies therewith to Immortality Those who are contented only to hear of or to see this goodly Land and not to go and possess it Those who will leave their Fathers House the Catholic Church and go abroad to feed upon Husks and imaginary vertue are the objects of our pity So indeed there is a sort of a Fiction in Law in the Authors way of conveyance of a Tenant by Deed or Lease of possession who notwithstanding hath nothing to do to enter upon the Estate or enjoy it if the Author be contented with such a Title only in the Sacrament I am sorry for him And thus the Similitude is reasonably applied as for our Adversaries way who saith that as the delivery of a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal is call'd a Conveyance or making over of such an Estate he should have prov'd that the Deed is called the Estate it self and not only the Conveyance of an Estate if he would have made this phrase any thing suitable to that of our Lord This is my Body in like manner the names of the things themselves made over to us in the New Covenant of the Gospel between God and Man are given to the Signs and Seals of the Covenant whereas there is no Analogy between these things nor truth neither in this instance It is just as if one should say that Tenterden Steeple were like the Goodwin Sands I confess I have often admired with my self at this sort of Similitude which Protestants are mighty big with pretending to Illustrate their fond opinion about the Sacrament clearly hereby which being examined proves as you see but a mere Tympany of the Brain The Author having before told us that nothing is more Common in all Languages than to give the name of the thing signified to the Sign proceeds now to give us examples of this out of Holy Scripture by Baptism saith he Christians are said to be partakers of the Holy Ghost Heb. 6. 4. And so they really are and their Bodies are his Temples But since Baptism is the Sign and the Holy Ghost the thing signified according to him why doth he not bring us one instance out of Scripture of Baptisms being called the Holy Ghost as they pretend that Bread in the words of Institution is called Christs Body For this which he hath brought of Baptism is no Example to his Common Rule We may reasonably conclude that if the Sacrament of Baptism had been so very like this of the Eucharist as they would have it it would have been Instituted in a like Form but it is quite otherwise For neither Water nor Baptism it self are called in Holy Scripture the Holy Ghost neither is there any Form of Cousecration of the Element delivered Indeed by the Sacrament of the Lords Supper we are also said to Communicate or to be made partakers of the Body of Christ which was broken and his Blood that was shed for us but that is his Real Body and Blood together with all the real benefits of his Death and Passion which do thereby accrue to us And thus St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Cup of blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ That is after Consecration it really is so altho' the Apostle calls it Bread by a Metaphor that being to our Souls what the ordinary Bread is to our Bodies true nourishment so also it is said that Aarons Rod devour'd the other Rods Exod. 7. 12. altho' it was then become a Serpent v.