10. That Water which was by our Lord converted into Wine is still called Water Joh. 2. 9. The Angels are called Men Gen. 19. 8. because they appeared in the shape of Men according to the usual Language of Sense very many instances of which are to be found For our Saviour had fully instructed them before that the Bread which he would give them was his flesh Joh. 6. 51. The Apostle also saith again v. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread and that one Bread can signifie nothing here but the Body of Christ which indeed is but one altho' appearing in innumerable place of the World at the same and at several times because it is still animated by the same one Soul and Divinity of Christ which cannot be said of the Bread in the Sacrament if but mere Bread for then it would not be one Bread or Loaf but many and of several sorts being received at very many places at the same time And the true reason here why they are called one Bread and one Body or Society of Christians is because they are all partakers of that one Bread viz. the Body of Christ and therefore also all inspired with the same Spirit But in the Authors Sense it would be no reason but they should rather have been many Bodies because they did Eat of so many Breads So that we see he hath still the same success in bringing those Texts of Scripture to uphold his cause which are the most pregnant proofs against him He then proceeds to teach the Catholics how they might argue in his new way from a Sign already Instituted and known as so to an AEnigma or dark saying taken from things of a disparate and really different nature and of no acknowledg'd Resemblance that is from Chalk to Cheese but they beg his Pardon for that Well but the same Apostle in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the Consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three verses together as often as ye Eat THIS Bread and Drink THIS Cup v. 26. Whosoever shall Eat THIS Bread and Drink THIS Cup of the Lord unworthily v. 27. But let a Man Examin himself and so let him Eat of THAT Bread and Drink of THAT Cup v. 28. It is true it was Bread Metaphorically but it was still this Bread with an Emphasis not such Bread as you ordinarily Eat but the Body of Christ which he told us was truly Meat or Meat indeed the true Bread from Heaven John 6. 32. It was a Cup but it was this Cup that is his Blood which was truly Drink or Drink indeed as he also hath taught us John 6. 55. and after examination let the true Christian Eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup which will strengthen his Body and Soul both much more than the ordinary Bread and Wine can his Body only Our Saviour himself when he had said This is my Blood of the New Testament immediately adds but I say unto you I will not henceforth Drink of this Fruit of the Vine that is of the true Vine as our Lord is pleased to call himself or of that Wine which by the Words of Benediction becomes my Blood being Originally the Fruit of the Vine or possibly it may refer to the unconsecrated Wine that was left in the Vessels until I drink it new that is fresh and newly Consecrated again with you in my Fathers Kingdom or after my Resurrection as some with the Author interpret the place but as others more generally till I drink of that new Wine of another sort and nature in the Kingdom of my heavenly Father where we shall drink of the River of his pleasures Psal 36. 8. and therefore the Authors following observation is nothing worth For after the Apostles were satisfied that they really drank the Blood of our Lord in this Sacrament and fed upon his Real Body it was an easy and familiar Metaphor to call them Bread and Wine because the outward Species gave a sufficient hint for the understanding of this Figurative Speech suitable to the Language of Sense in the instances above mentioned out of Scripture and because there was true Spiritual nourishment conveyed to the faithful by the Body and Blood of our Saviour thus received as there is Corporeal nourishment received by the Natural Bread and Wine which we take for the refection of our Bodies DISCOURSE Besides if we consider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural Body and Blood of Christ because it was his Body broken and his Blood shed which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand literally of his natural Body broken and his blood shed then these words this is my Body which is broken and this is my Blood which is shed could not be true because his Body was then whole and unbroken and his Blood not then shed nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice as they affirm this Sacrament to be unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered And it is likewise impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given no his Body broken and this Blood shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body whole and unpierc'd and therefore they could not understand these words literally If they did can we imagine that the Disciples who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections should make no difficulty of this matter nor so much as ask our Saviour how can these things be that they should not tell him we see this to be Bread and that to be Wine and we see thy Body to be distinct from both we see thy Body not broken aud thy Blood not shed From all which it must needs be very evident to any man that will impartially consider things how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour this is my Body and This is my Blood in the sense of Transubstantiation nay on the contrary that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise I proceed to shew ANSWER Besides if we consider that our Lord celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible that these words should be understood otherwise than properly of the real Body and Blood of Christ because it was his Body broken and his Blood poured out which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand as figurative only of his natural Body broken and his Blood shed then these words this is my Body which is broken and this is my Blood which is shed could not be true because his
how this can be since the accidents or outward species of Bread still remain I desire them to resolve these Questions How a thousand species can be reflected from the same Glass at once to a thousand Eyes at the same time How the same Glass being whole transmits one intire species and yet broken into many small pieces every piece reflects the same whole and intire species there being all the while but one subject and what that subject is wherein these species do subsist Or let them but give a true account of the nature of any small Particle of that matter which composeth the Vniverse before they pry too far into the secrets of Divine and supernatural Mysteries and think that God can do nothing but in such a manner as they can comprehend Therefore our Adversaries had good reason to say speaking concerning the Objections against the Trinity Incarnation and the Resurrection with identity of Bodies That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation as of those then this Argument were good and that if it were possible to bring a thousand more Arguments against Transubstantiation yet that we are to believe the Revelation in despite of them all Again That Those who believe the Trinity in all those Niceties of Explications which are in the Schools and which now a days pass for the Doctrin of the Church believe them with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagin'd to be in the Point of Transubstantiation And do not therefore insist upon the Point how far Reason is to be submitted to Divine Authority in case of certainty that there is a Divine Revelation for what they are to believe And that there are things haud pauca not few in number which we all believe that if human Reason be consulted do not seem less impossible and less manifestly contradictory than Transubstantiation it self Now that the words of our Lord This is my Body being understood in a proper Sense as in the ensuing Answer is prov'd they ought to be do necessarily infer Transubstantiation is manifest Because as is allowed by all that was Bread which our Lord took into his hands before he spoke those Words there must therefore a Change be made otherwise it could not Really become Christs Body nor that which he gave his Disciples be in a proper Sense so called And the Accidents or sensible species still remaining as before the change must be made in the substance This is what the Tridentine Council infers in these Words Because Christ our Redeemer did affirm that truly to be his Body which he offer'd under the species of Bread therefore it was ever believed in the Church of God which also the Holy Synod now again Declares that by the Consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a Conversion made of the whole substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of our Lord Christ and of the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood which Conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church fitly and properly called Transubstantiation The foregoing Inference will evidently appear to be true if we consider the proper and genuin Sense of every particular Word in that Proposition of our Lord This is my Body This here in its true and proper Sense signifies some Thing Essence Substance or Object in general under such an appearance as was Demonstrated to Sense For if by the word This were exprest the whole Nature of the Predicate in such a Proposition e. g. as This is Bread or This is my Body then the Proposition would be purely Identical or Tautological for it would be no more than if one should say This Bread is Bread or This my Body is my Body Whereas it is the property of the Attribute to extend and fully to determin the Idea of the Subject by adding clearness to it And we must remember that the English word This is exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Original Greek here as also in most other Languages not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Masculine Gender so as to agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread. Now tho' there be no distinction as to the Gender in the English word This Yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Bread as our Adversaries would have here meant is false Grammar In like manner the Word Is hath here it's proper Sense not as it is used sometimes for Signifies The Word My can have Relation to no other Person but our Lord who spoke it nor consequently to any other Body but his own truly so as to it's Substance and therefore truly exprest by the Word Body that which was before Bread at the beginning of the Enunciation This is my Body being now made to be his Body at its Conclusion because in Practical Propositions as this is with God to say and to do are the same thing and thus you see what is meant by each word in the Proposition This is my Body as explicated by Catholics tho' you do not believe the Mystery Let us now observe what a Late Expostulator hath said against this Explication He undertakes to prove that the Words This is my Body cannot be taken in a literal I conceive he means proper in opposition to Figurative Sense which he supposes his Enemies themselves of our Party will grant if he proves that the This here mentioned is Bread which he thus undertakes to do That saith he which our Saviour took into his Hands when he was about the Institution was Bread that which he blessed was the same thing that he had taken into his hands that which he brake was the same thing that he had blessed that which he gave them when he said it was his Body was that which he had broken But that which he broke which he blessed which he took into his hands was Bread Therefore it was Bread which he gave his Disciples and by This is meant This Bread. This Induction saith the Expostulator is so fair and so clear that I am sure you cannot evade it But what Sir if after all your mighty boasting This prove to be neither a fair Induction nor any Argument at all but a mere Fallacy or Illusion proceeding from what Logicians call Ignoratio Elenchi Ignorance of Argument or proof And just such a one as This would be if proposed to you That which the Butcher exposed to Sale was raw Flesh that which you bought was the same thing that the Butcher exposed to Sale that which you Eat was the same thing that you bought But that which you bought which the Butcher expos'd to Sale was raw Flesh therefore you Eat raw Flesh The Kitchin-Boy will tell you where the Fallacy lies and help you out at a dead lift But to make the matter yet more plain I shall give you some other instances in your way of Sophistry which the most ignorant at the first
and such passages in it it is possible all this may be otherwise The second is how high soever he talk of the Catholics not being certain and his own being sure of having the Scripture for them yet he doth not vouchsafe to tell us what he means by that Word viz. whether express Texts or deductions only If express Texts Let him produce one if he can for that new Article of his Creed a Creed much younger than that of Pope Pius the fourth I do believe that there is not any Transubstantiation in the Lord's Supper or in the Elements of Bread and Wine c. If Deductions only Why may not the Catholics who have the express Words of Scripture that it is his Body infer as surely from thence that there is a change in the Elements of Bread and Wine as the Protestants who have no such express Text that it is not his Body can do to prove that there is no change DISCOURSE Of the first of these I shall now treat and endeavour to shew against the Church of Rome That in this Sacrament there is no substantial change made of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Blood of Christ that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered upon the Cross for so they explain that hard word Transubstantiation ANSWER Of the former of these I shall now treat and endeavour to vindicate the Catholic Church which declares it as an Article of Faith that by Vertue of Consecration in the Sacrament there is a Conversion made of the whole substance of the Bread into the substance of the Body of our Lord and of the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood which Conversion she conveniently and properly calls Transubstantiation a hard word indeed to those who will not believe the great Mystery expressed by it DISCOURSE Before I engage in this Argument I cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our Adversaries to dispute a matter of Sense which is one of those things about which Aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute ANSWER Before I engage in this Argument I cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our Adversary not to dispute a matter of sense since upon this all parties are agreed that there ought to be no dispute but to Answer all the absurdities which the Author is engaged in by espousing false principles and among the rest as the chief that Sense can judge of the internal nature or substance of things For all that is the proper object of Sense that is the species or outward accidents of Bread and Wine are allowed to be present in the Sacrament by all Catholics as well as Separatists And we strangely admire that he should not remember that Rule of his Master Aristotle which every young Scholar learns in the beginning of his Logick that Substantia non incurrit in sensus Substance is not the object of sense From whence it is apparent to all Men that have the use of their Reason that all the Authors cracking confidence upon this Argument is founded upon a vulgar Error slily insinuated that Catholics believe that which they see in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ But lest any should be deceived with this popular Argument and take up a prejudice against us as in good reason they may since they are made to believe that we would perswade them out of their Senses I shall be so far from endeavouring to do this as the Author fondly imagins all Catholics do that rather out of a deep sentiment of gratitude to the great God of Nature who hath so fearfully and wonderfully made these Bodies of ours I shall freely acknowledge that the Senses do not deceive us at all For the deception doth not lie at any time in the Senses but in the Judgment and the Senses do always give true hints to the mind when their Organs and the Medium are rightly disposed and they are employed about their proper and adequate Objects What we may certainly conclude from the goodness and veracity of God is that he will not deceive Man the Creature that he loves and therefore usually those objects which are represented to him by his Senses as having relation to the conservation of his Body are of such and such a determinate substance as the outward and sensible accidents do hint them to be of So that he is not mistaken in them unless he judge rashly and then too there are means provided by which he may correct his Error Thus the substance of Fire is generally represented under the species or usual form of Fire Of a Dove under the usual form or likness of a Dove So that we may allow in this manner that ordinarily the substance doth incur into the mind through the Senses by means of the accidents but it is certain that the Senses cannot judge either of the substance or accidents Therefore God who is the Author of Nature and can change it when he pleaseth that Man may not be deceived in this kind doth usually inform him when he maketh any substantial change of this Nature in his Creatures which is above the reason of Man to comprehend from any hints made by his senses as being truly Miraculous Thus when the Holy Ghost appeared in the form of a Dove Man was informed by God that it was really the Holy Ghost in substance of Nature and not a Dove When the same Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the Visible appearance of Cloven Tongues of Fire they had notice from Heaven that this was truly that Holy Spirit which came in this Visible shape When Angels appeared in the forms of Men they had it revealed to them that they were notwithstanding Angels When our Lord presented himself to his Disciples under the species of Bread he told them plainly that it was his Body To shew which Revelation to have been made from the Authority of Holy Scripture and Fathers will be the subject of the ensuing Discourse This which I have here said being fully conclusive against the Argument of sense's being properly the Judge of substance And now who is it that abuseth the senses the Author or Catholics He by applying them to judge of substance which is an object that is no way adequate to them would make them to deceive Men. We employing them about their proper objects which are here the accidents or outward species of Bread and Wine which as by them we are convinced do still remain after Consecration prove the Miracle from sense because at the same time that these appear the understanding being inlightened by Faith discerns the true and real substance of Christs Body to be veiled under them which makes the thing truly Miraculous To employ therefore the senses about
their true and adequate objects and the mind about those which are proper to it is rational But to advance sense above reason and even Faith it self the Beast above the Man and the Christian too as the Author doth is such a piece of stupidity as is not to be parallel'd DISCOURSE It might well seem strange if any Man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-bullet is not a Pike It is every whit as hard a case to be put to maintain by a long Discourse that what we see and handle and taste to be Bread is Bread and not the Body of a Man and what we see and taste to be Wine is Wine and not Blood And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any farther proof I do not see why any Man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the World sees it is not and this without all possibility of being farther confuted So that the business of Transubstantiation is not a controversie of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of downright Impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture and all the Sense and Reason of Mankind ANSWER Here the Author like another Lucian renouncing the Christian Faith begins to ridicule the most Sacred Mystery of our Religion I confess I am very unwilling to follow him in such dirty way as he takes It is not at all suitable to the retiredness wherein our Devout minds should be entertained when we conceive of a thing so truly Divine to speak slightly I must intreat therefore the Candid Reader to abstract his thoughts wholly from the Blessed Sacrament at such time as any of this froth is cast back again upon the Author which I heartily wish he had spared me the pains of doing and that he had kept his Egg and his Elephant to himself The Analogy would have been more easily made out by those who maintain that Grace and Vertue are the Body and Blood of Christ verily and indeed received for so an Egg is vertually at least an Elephant if according to the principle of the Philosopher Omnia animalia generantur ex ovo every Animal is generated out of an Egg then by such as hold with the Catholic Church that the Sacrament is not Bread and Wine but what verily and indeed it is the Real Body and Blood of Christ Now how to change a Musket-bullet into a Pike I confess I know not The Dragoons better understand that piece of Martial exercise Howsoever I must needs acknowledge with the Author that it seems strange that any Man should write a Book to prove that an Egg is not an Elephant and that a Musket-bullet is not a Pike therefore it is a thousand pities that so curious a Wit as his should be concern'd in so absurd an enterprise as he believes his to be And yet Good God what will not the confident presumption of some Men put them upon he undertakes a task fully as impossible to be performed as that and of infinitely more dangerous consequence to prove that not to be which by the power of God is really made to be in the Sacrament The Author knows that the Catholic Church grounds this wonderful change made in the Elements upon Divine Revelation which depends upon the Veracity of God So that it will not be so very hard a case to maintain by a discourse much shorter than this of the Author even our Lords Words of Institution that what we see and handle and taste as Bread is not Bread in substance but the Body of Christ and what we see and taste as Wine is not Wine in substance but the Blood of our Saviour And if this evidence may not pass for sufficient without any further proof I do not see why any Man that hath confidence enough to do so may not deny any thing to be what all the World sees it is or affirm any thing to be what all the World sees it is not since the Word of God is more Infallible than our senses and this without all possibility of being farther confuted for he that denies the Veracity of God can no ways conclude his senses to be veracious The denial then of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation is not a Controversy of Scripture against Scripture or of Reason against Reason but of down-right impudence against the plain meaning of Scripture and all the sense and reason of Mankind DISCOURSE It is a most Self-evident Falsehood and there is no Doctrin or Proposition in the World that is of it self more evidently true than Transubstantiation is evidently false And yet if it were possible to be true it would be the most ill natur'd and pernicious truth in the World because it would suffer nothing else to be true it is like the Roman-Catholic Church which will needs be the whole Christian Church and will allow no other Society of Christians to be any part of it So Transubstantiation if it be true at all it is all truth for it cannot be true unless our Senses and the Senses of all Mankind be deceived about their proper objects and if this be true and certain then nothing else can be so for if we be not certain of what we see we can be certain of nothing ANSWER The Doctrin of the real Presence or Transubstantiation is a Truth that is evident upon the Authority of the Revealer and there is no Opinion that the Author holds is more evidently false than this is evidently true For Faith is the evidence of things not seen Heb. 11. 1. and the best natur'd truth in the World it is which conveys us infinite blessings Which unless it be so we have no reason to believe any thing else to be true a Truth like that of the Catholic Church which unless it be that which hath lived in Communion with and just obedience to her chief Pastors especially St. Peter and his lawful Successors in the See of Rome then there hath been no true Church upon the face of the Earth For so the real Presence or Transubstantiation unless it be true we cannot be assured of any truth It must be so if God be veracious that is unless what he reveals be false since the very truth of our Senses and all our Faculties depends upon his Veracity and if we be not certain of what he hath revealed though it seem to contradict our Senses we are certain of nothing DISCOURSE And yet notwithstanding all this there is a Company of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as in good earnest to believe this gross and palpable Error and to impose the belief of it upon the Christian World under no less penalties than of temporal death and eternal damnation And therefore to undeceive if possible these
deluded Souls it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a Doctrin and to lay open the monstrous Absurdity of it ANSWER And yet notwithstanding all this there is a Sect of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as confidently to deny this revealed truth and to impose this strange Negative Article of Faith of theirs That in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after Consecration by any person whatsoever under no less penalties than the temporal loss of their Estates and Livelihoods the loss of their Lives the formal renouncing of the Catholic Faith and Religion which is dearer to them than their Lives and consequently Eternal damnation Therefore to undeceive which we hope is possible these deluded Souls it will be necessary to shew the real grounds upon which Transubstantiation is built that so the monstrous absurdity of the contrary Doctrin may be made to appear DISCOURSE And in the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin II. I shall produce our Objections against it And if I can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it and that there are invincible Objections against it then every man is not only in reason excused from believing this Doctrin but hath great cause to believe the contrary FIRST I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin Which must be one or more of these five Either 1st The Authority of Scripture Or 2ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviour's words This is my Body in this Sense Or 3ly The Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith. Or 4ly The absolute necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5ly To magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle 1st They pretend for this Doctrin the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour This is my Body Now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence I shall endeavour to make good these two things 1. That there is no necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation 2. That there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise ANSWER In the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the Catholic Church for this Doctrin II. I shall weigh the Objections which the Author makes against it And if I can shew that there is a real ground for it and that the Objections against it are weak and inconsiderable then every man is not only in reason obliged to believe it but hath great cause to reject the contrary First I shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the Catholic Church for this Doctrin Which are at least these five 1st The Authority of Scripture 2ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviours words This is my Body in this Sense Or 3ly The Authority of the Church in every Age to declare propose and exhibit when by misinterpretation of Heretics they are forc'd to it a more explicit Sense of the Ancient Articles of our Faith. Or 4ly The infinite Mercy and condescension of God to operate such a change as this for the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5ly The just dignity of the Priest whom God is pleas'd to make use of as his Minister for the working so miraculous a change 1st The Catholic Church hath always grounded the Doctrin of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation upon the Authority of Divine Revelation in these words of our Saviour This is my Body Now to shew the validity of this Proof I shall endeavour to make good these two things I. That there is a necessity of understanding these words of our Saviour in the Sense of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation From whence it will necessarily follow II. That there is no reason at all for the understanding them otherwise DISCOURSE First That there is no necessity to understand those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation If there be any it must be from one of these two Reasons Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture which I think no man ever yet said or else because a Sacrament admits of no figures which would be very absurd for any man to say since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure And especially since it cannot be denied but that in the institution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally When he gave the Cup he said This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Where first the Cup is put for Wine contained in the Cup or else if the words by literally taken so as to signifie a substantial change it is not of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the Blood of Christ but into the New Testament or new Covenant in his Blood. Besides that his Blood is said then to be shed and his Body to be broken which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first celebration of this Sacrament ANSWER First That there is a necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the Sense of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation For these two Reasons 1. Because although there be many figurative expressions in Scripture which all men allow yet this in relation to the Case in hand is not such 2. Although a Sacrament admits of Figures which no man is so absurd as to deny since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward Sign and Figure Yet the Figure doth not lie where the Author pretends it doth The Rule which men ought to observe in their discourse in relation to Figures is this That a Figure should not be used which the Auditor doth not easily apprehend to be so To compare therefore a Figure which all the World can easily understand to be so with an expression which no man can Construe to be a Figure according to the Rules of human Discourse is very absurd Yet such is the Authors instance from Scripture From whence he alledgeth that when our Saviour gave the Cup he
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
natural organized and visible Body was then whole and unbroken and its Blood not then shed yet that very Body as broken in the Sacrament was said to be then given for them that very Blood as there poured out was said then to be poured out for the remission of sins Therefore it was a propitiatory Sacrifice although offered before as well as after Christ had suffered to Pay the full Price of our Redemption because its whole nature did consist in the relation which it had to the Sacrifice that was offered up for us upon the Cross from which it received all its vertue It was very possible therefore for our Lords Disciples to understand these words properly because although they plainly saw that what he gave them had the Species of Bread and Wine yet they believed him when he said that it was his Body that was given for them although his Body at the same time gave what was given his Body broken and his Blood poured out for them although they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body whole and unpierced because he had plainly told them so who had the Words of eternal Life and could not deceive them and for this reason they could not but understand his words properly Otherwise can we imagin that the Disciples who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections if they could have conceiv'd that these words were to be understood in a parabolical or improper Sense would not have desired an Explication of them of our Lord as they did of other Parables which were more easy to be understood than these words in such a Sense nor so much as ask our Saviour how can these things be That they should not tell him we see This to be Bread and That to be Wine and we see thy Body to be distinct from both we see thy Body not broken and thy Blood not shed what therefore should be the meaning of these words or that our Saviour the true Guid and greatest Lover of Souls or any of his Apostles after him should never have given any Explanation of them I have already shewed in answer to the Author that the words of our Lord This is my Body could not according to the Rules of Human Discourse be taken Figuratively so as to Signifie this is a Sign of my Body unless the Apostles had bin before-hand prepared to understand them as so There are no words Recorded by any of the Evangelists to dispose them to believe the words in such a sense nor any indeed that relate to the matter unless it be some sayings of our Lord in the Sixth Chapter of Saint Johns Gospel that were delivered before the Institution of the Eucharist which I shall now consider for the further Clearing of the Point as also those words of Saint Luke This do in remembrance of me used by our Lord at the time of the Institution and prove that none of these expressions do at all favor our Adversaries Figurative Sense but the clean contrary We Read in the Sixth Chapter of Saint John's Gospel that our Saviour had prepared the minds of his Disciples before-hand by two great Miracles both which tended towards the strengthning of their Faith in the Sacred Eucharist the Former being a Figure of this Sacrament since in it he multiplied Five Loaves so as to make them feed five thousand persons altho' the fragments which remained filled twelve baskets and were more in quantity than the five Loaves were at the first so that they needed not to doubt but he could feed as many thousands as he pleas'd with his own precious Body exhibited under the Species of Bread in the blessed Sacrament and yet his Body be still one and the same The latter shewing them that he could Convey his Body how and whither he pleased which made them ask him when they saw him on the other side the Sea without taking Ship at the shore Rabbi when camest thou hither Then he proceeds to instruct them in Three of the greatest Mysteries of Religion 1. His Incarnation or coming down from Heaven and taking Human Flesh upon him from verse 27. where he also gives them a hint of the blessed Sacrament that meat that perisheth not to v. 51. 2. The Real Presence of his Body and Manducation thereof in the Sacrament which wonderful Presence there the Fathers did ever compare to the Incarnation it self from v. 51 to v. 59. 3. The Ascension is mentioned to Prove the two former Mysteries v. 62. Our Saviour having styled himself the Bread of Life towards the beginning of the Discourse of the Incarnation v. 33 and 35. after some Explication made of this Repeats it again twice v. 49 and 51 to inculcate it the better into his Disciples minds And then instructs them how they should be partakers of this Bread not by believing only that the Son of God came down from Heaven and was made Man taking upon him Human Flesh but by feeding upon his Flesh in the Sacrament which being a deep Mystery that they might not doubt of the truth of it he explains to them what he meant when he said v. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven if any man eat of me he shall live for ever not by telling them that by this Bread is meant the Doctrin which he taught or that by eating this Bread is to be understood the believing of this Doctrin in a Metaphorical or parabolical Sense as the Socinians and Sacramentarians fondly imagin or in like manner as he Explained the Parable of the Sower that Sowed good Seed telling them that the Field is the World the good Seed are the Children of the Kingdom or as when he had said I have meat to eat which ye know not of he explained himself by saying my Meat is to do the Will of him that sent me putting the Predicate in the place of the Subject in the manner before hinted and saying the Bread is my Word or the Doctrin that I teach but quite otherwise he assures them that the Bread that he will give them is his Flesh which he promiseth to give for the life of the world and which by an Elegant Metaphor Christ calleth Bread because it was to afford nourishment to the Soul and Body both in a Spiritual manner in the Sacrament as the ordinary Bread was to nourish the Body in a carnal manner by way of corporeal digestion out of the Sacrament And there is no doubt but the Jews understood our Lord in a proper Sense when they said v. 52. How can this Man give us his flesh to eat Our Saviour did not answer this doubt by telling them as he easily might have done in the Sacramentarian way that no more was meant but believing stedfastly in his Death and applying to themselves the merits of it and which Explication he would have certainly given them then or afterwards by
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.