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
for where he enters unworthily there he enters in Judgment with the Receiver This holy Food cannot be the substance of Bread because Origen calls it an incorruptible Banquet Bread is not such Nor can it be a bare typical Figure of the Lord for when the Centurion said O Lord I am not worthy 't was our own Saviour present And if this Humiliation O Lord I am unworthy be attributed to any thing but our Saviour there present how can you excuse it from Idolatrie Finally this Lord invocated enters into the wicked which cannot be by Faith. For your Church teaches unworthy Receivers are not partakers of the Lord in the Sacrament by Faith. Article V. Vpon St. Cyprian YOU object St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle to Caecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water without Wine mingled with it and his main Argument against them is this that the Blood of Christ with which we are redeemed and quickned cannot seem to be in the Cup when Wine is wanting to the Chalice by which the Blood of Christ is represented Very well It is Wine in representation and the Blood of Christ is in the Cup by propriety or essence for it is that Blood with which we were redeemed and quickned according to St. Cyprian You argue afterwards from these other Words of the same Saint by the Water the People is understood by Wine the Blood of Christ is shew'n but when in the Cup Water is mingled with Wine the People are united to Christ so that you deduce according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental Cup is no otherwise changed into the Blood of Christ than the Water mixed with it is changed into the People which are said to be united to Christ I shall not be strictly put to it for an Answer after I have thus proposed St. Cyprian's mind St. Cyprian compares here the Jews to Wine the Gentiles to Water at the Marriage of Canaan The want of Wine marked out the Jews who refused to embrace the Law of Christ The plentifulness of Water represented the Gentiles converted to Christianity Hence Water comes in the Sacrament to design the Elected People Wine the Blood of Christ and both mixt in the Chalice the union of the People with Christ Now to your Argument And that I may the better convince you give me leave to make use of your Logic. Water is the People as Wine is Christ then as we receive Christ by Faith in the Sacrament so do we the People And consequently the People sanctify the Soul as Christ doth in the Eucharist Are you not ashamed of your Sophism Or rather how durst you equalize the People with Christ Sinners with their Saviour Man with God Again Wine signified the Jews according to St. Cyprian and Water the Gentiles now deduce from hence the Water was not changed into Wine at the Marriage of Canaan as you have done from the like instance that the mixed Chalice is not changed into Christ's Body and Blood. Article VI. Upon St. Augustin THE variety of Testimonies you gather from St. Augustin cannot well without perplexity be considered altogether I 'll endeavour to decline this Confusion examining each one of them in so many Paragraphs Paragraph I. YOU pitch first upon this Expression of St. Austin's in his Book against Adimantus the Manichee Our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body Adimantus endeavours to demonstrate the God of the Old Testament prohibited eating of Blood grounding himself upon this Principle of Duteronomy Blood is the Soul of the Flesh thereby to prejudice that Soul which Jesus declared in the Gospel was not lyable to corporal harm or punishment St. Augustin replys the Old Law speaks of the Animal Soul and the Words of Christ are only understood of the Rational Secondly the Holy Doctor tells him that Blood is called the Soul only because it is the Sign of the Soul. This he confirms accommodating himself to the Language of the Manichees who were of opinion that Bread Corn and Grapes naturally signified Christ's Body with this Instance our Saviour did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave in the Manichees Opinion the Sign of his Body The Manichees Opinion was not St. Austin's And he therefore forewarns us to call in question Faith because he made use of the Manichee's Principle in their own confutation Paragraph II. SAINT Austin speaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his last Supper has these Words in which he recommended and delivered to his Disciples the Figure of his Body Language say you with exclamation which would now be censured for Heresie in the Church of Rome I 'm confident you are already persuaded to the contrary And I know not any Sect which holds a Figure incompatible with the reality I shall cite two of your Learned Patrons Peter Martyr says A Figure as far forth as 't is a Figure is not repugnant to the presence of the thing And Calvin before him granted a Figure doth not exclude the thing figurated The Lutherans are not of a contrary mind And if you 'll be pleased to look either into the Ancient or Modern Divines among Catholics you 'll find the same acknowledgment Paschasius formerly gave this answer to Frudegardus instancing St. Austin's Testimony These are Replys Paschasius Mystical things in which is the verity of Flesh and Blood and none others than Christ's yet in a Mysterie and Figure and the Words of this Mystery are called a Figurative Speech so Christ himself is called by the Apostle a Figure though Christ be the Truth Algerus illustrates the same with this Reflection upon St. John Baptist He was called a Prophet and more than a Prophet So the Sacrament is a Figure and more than a Figure To these I add of the Modern Catholic Schoolmen Ruardus Melderus Cardinal Alen Suarez Gordon Gonet And I never read any that held the contrary And I conclude with this of St. Austin The Blessed Virgin did not onely conceive Christ spiritually by Faith consenting to the Angelical Salutation but also conceived him corporally in her own Womb. How then doth the spiritual reception by Faith exclude the substantial Communion of Christ's Body in St. Austin's Opinion Paragraph III. IN the Third Place you cite his Comment on the 98th Psalm where treating of the scandal which the Disciples took at that saying of our Saviour except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them ye must understand spiritually what I have said unto you ye are not to eat this Body which ye see and to drink this Blood which shall be shed by those that shall crucify me I have commended a certain Sacrament to you which being Spiritually understood will give you Life This is as much as to say be not
a Figure of Christ's Body you cannot deny but you read in this Father that Christ made the Bread his Body as we read in St. John he made Water Wine The Sacrament may then be a Figure and the true Body Thus he proves the same thing to be called a Figure and yet to be the same substance instancing the Word is God and an Image too The Catholic Church only disallows those Figures which exclude the true Substance of Christ's Body present in the Sacrament You urge a second Testimony from the same Author using this Argument against the Sceptics who rejected the certainty of Sense He might be deceived in the voice from Heaven in the smell of the Oyntment with which he was anointed against his burial and in the taste of the Wine which he consecrated in the remembrance of his Blood. These last Words are somewhat changed Tertullian says he tasted not another Savour of Wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood. This learned Father established two Principles 1. That Christ was truly Man. And 2. That his Operations were real like other Mens The First Verity was not here Tertullian's Theme This he vindicated against Marcion where he proved that Christ was not a Phantasm or Appearance The Second Verity Tertullian here made good against the Sceptics For if the sound of the Voice from Heaven was not imaginary if the Smell of the Perfume was not Odoriferous and if there was not another Tast of the Wine which was consecrated in remembrance of Christ's Blood then these Operations of our Saviour were not distinct from vulgar Sensation like those Impressions other Men naturally receive sincere real and without delusion All Catholics grant as much and none will deny the same Tast of Wine after Consecration But the Tast is not the Substance of Wine The Substance of Wine is not here spoken of And the knowledge of Substance is the proper endeavour of Reason Senses care is to search into the certainty of Colour Tast Accidents and Appearances which was Tertullian's Province against the Sceptics The whole Controversie then between us is left by this Objection entire and untouched Article IV. Upon Origen ORigen on his Comment on St. Matthew speaking of the Sacrament hath this Passage That Food which is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer as to that of it which is material goeth into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught which none surely will say as you remark of the Body of Christ But some have said it of the Body of Christ which they thought was conveyed under the shape of material Accidents of Bread into the Draught which Sense if admitted to be Origen's the Learned Cardinal Peron might say without injury Origen talks like an Heretic The same Illustrious Cardinal doubts whether this be the Work of Origen because he says Erasmus was the first that produced this Old Fragment where he had it no Body knows and this not a Fragment but only a Version thereof and cautioned by himself Sixtus Senensis suspects this Testimony of Origen was depraved by Heretics Genebrard is of the same Opinion These Critical Censures take all assurance from your Objection rendring it either dubious or depraved or heretical Moreover if Origen in this Passage should downright prescribe the Catholic Belief of the change of Bread into the Body of Christ this ought not to disquiet any sober Inquirer Because his chief Error was the exclusion of the literal Sense in Scripture Whereupon Lirinensis calls Origen the Interpreter of Scripture after a new manner St. Epiphanious complains he turned all into Allegories Theophilus says he supplants by Shades and Images the Truths of Scripture And the Church in the Fifth Oecumenical Council peculiarly anathematised his Works Finally If I should answer by what is material is understood only the material Accidents of Bread and Wine which go into the Belly and are cast into the Draught what inconvenience would follow from your Objection No more than what follows from what the same Father adds by way of explication It is not the matter of the Bread but the Word which is spoken over it which profiteth him who worthily eateth the Lord and this he says he had spoken concerning the Typical and Symbolical Body So that the Matter of Bread receives the Word of God spoken over it and this Word as it changes the Substance of Bread so doth it profit the worthy Receiver and this Word Origen calls the Typical and Symbolical Body of Christ because the Word is Spiritual Food Thus the fame Father in his Homilies upon Leviticus proves Christ's Flesh to be true Meat because all his Speech is true Food And he adds St. Peter St. Paul and all the Apostles are Food will you conclude from hence the Apostles were not true Men At least if this will not do you resolve to do the business by drawing out of the same Homily a killing Letter of the New Testament For if says Origen we take according to the Letter that which is said except ye eat my Flesh and drink my Blood this Letter kills This Letter except ye eat my Flesh understood of the Substantial presence of Christ's Body after a Sacramental manner invisible to Sense under the species of Bread is what gives life in the Catholic Church according to that of St. John who shall eat my Flesh shall live for ever If Roman Catholics be out of danger the blow must fall else where It falls upon the Capharnaits who following the naked Letter carnally thought our Saviour would give his Flesh to be served in as common Meat and cut in Pieces It falls upon those who literally adhering to what they see believe they receive what it seems to be Bread. Upon both these it falls If we follow saith Origen the Letter and expound it either according to the Jews acceptation were not these the Capharnaity or according to what it seems commonly to be are you not of this Number I blush to confess what is writ in the Law. Thus you strike at Catholics with the Killing Letter of Origen and wound your self together with the Capharnaits For your warlike Argument give me leave to propose two peaceable ones out of the same Father The First is in his Homilies upon Numbers where he compares the Figure with the Figurated the Manna with the Body of Christ The Manna was in Figure Food Now in reality the Flesh of the Word God is true Meat And what was first in the Figure designed is now compleated in truth and reality The Second is contained in these Words When you receive the Holy Food and Incorruptible Banquet when in the Bread and Cup of life you eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Lord then our Lord enters under your roof do you therefore humbling your self imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy thou shouldst enter under my Roof
Sinners upon Earth in the likeness of Man deny'd that he was truly Man. 'T is true many Dissenters from the Catholic Church and Hereticks grounding themselves on this Scriptural Passage Christ appeared in the likeness of Man eagerly taught that he was a Phantasm or Appearance not a natural Man composed of Flesh and Bone. And you their Faithful Imitator gloss after the same manner not upon Scripture but upon a single Passage of one Father and this too borrowed from Gratian. But with how little reason you gloss after this manner these following Passages of S. Austin taken out of the same Gratian will farther demonstrate The First is part of the Canon wherein your Objection is contained These are his Words What exteriorly appears in the Sacrament is a Figure the Truth is the Body and Blood of Christ made of the Substance of Bread and Wine The Second Passage is We faithfully confess it is before Consecration Bread and Wine which Nature made but after Consecration the Flesh and Blood of Christ which Benediction consecrated The Third is the meaning of that Passage of our Saviour The Bread which I will give in the 6th of St. John which words determine in St. Austin's mind How Christ is Bread not only as he is the Word which gives all things life but also according to the Flesh assumed for the life of the World. Is this not real Flesh Paragraph VII YOU mention but one more Testimony but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered It is in his Treatise de Doctrina Christiana where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or commanding us to do good it is not figurative if the contrary it is figurative for example except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you this seems to command a heinous Crime therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord. If I should deny that St. Austin speaks here of receiving the Sacrament you would be puzled to find out a warrant for your famous Assertion For many Learned Writers judiciously remark that these words except ye eat of my Flesh in Saint Austin's Sense may be thus explicated except ye eat it by Faith by Piety by Good Works which is a Spiritual Communion out of the Sacrament of the Passion of our Lord. And if this be true as it is more than probably so St. Austin says here what all Catholics profess For we all say we may communicate spiritually of the Passion of Christ by Faith believing in Jesus when we receive not the Sacrament and yet we believe in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But if you will still keep this Holy Father whose Learning has always been the Admiration of Mankind out of his wits to use your Phrase a slight reflection supposing he speaks here of Sacramental Communion will help him to return to himself and reconcile him to the Catholic Affirmation I think one of a mean Capacity can distinguish the manner of eating and the thing eaten Which if true St. Austin may literally understand the thing eaten in the Sacrament to be the true Flesh of Christ God and Man and yet at the same instant hold that the manner of eating this Flesh to which this Passage except ye eat my Flesh has referenee is Spiritual For although the true Body be taken in the shape of Bread into the Mouth and let down into the Stomack yet it is not ground with the Teeth or separated in pieces We are taught after a Spiritual manner to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. Lissen to the Voice of God and you 'l hear the Gospel mention eating a Man take eat this is my Body The manner is Spiritual for the Body is given in the shape of Bread and in this Sense St. Austin calls these words except ye eat my Flesh a figurative Speech The Substance or the thing eaten is not here mentioned by the Saint But it is the true Body of Christ as the same Saint assures us else-where in these Lines We believe in the Sacrament with faithful heart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man Christ Jesus giving us his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drank although it appear more horrible to eat than to kill Human Flesh to drink than to spill Human Blood. Every word almost instances a new Argument for the truth of the Flesh This oral receiving with mouth God and Man This horror of eating and drinking Flesh and Blood this Antithesis between eating and killing drinking and spilling terminated to the same substance leaves not the least scruple to doubt that the thing eaten is real Flesh and Blood. And pray what horror would there be to eat an Image of Flesh or what Language speaks of killing the Figure of a Man The same Saint in his Exposition on the 33d Psalm hath this Passage He 's truly our Lord who truly gave us his Body to eat in which he so much suffered Elsewhere he says the Faithful receive into their mouth that Blood which redeemed them And in his 27th Treatise on St. John speaking of St. Peter's Confession I find this remarkable Sentence You are Christ the Son of the living God and what you give in your Flesh and Blood is nothing else but your own self Now you must acknowledge the way I have prescribed or find some other expedient to reconcile St. Austin's Wit with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or all the World will imagine you put your own to a desperate adventure Article VII YOU mention two Testimonies out of Theodoretus's Dialogues between a Catholic under the name of Orthodoxus and a Heretic under the name of Eranistes who maintained with the Eutichians that the Humanity of Christ after the Ascension was changed into the Divinity I 'll examine each apart Paragraph I. The Dispute of Orthodoxus and Eranistes in the First Dialogue ORthodoxus undertakes to shew that the Humanity of Christ alwaies remain'd This he proves because the Humanity was a Vail or Garment to the Divinity as we read in Genesis where Jacob prophecy'd of the Messias He washed his Garment in Wine and his Cloaths in the Blood of the Grape Eranistes replys this is understood literally of his proper Habit with which he was cloathed upon Earth Orthodoxus resumes that Jesus called himself the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and the Blood of our Saviour is called the Blood of the Vine And if our Saviour be called the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and from the side of our Saviour ran Fountains of Blood on the rest of his Body The Prophet rightly foretold that He washed his Robe in Wine and his Cloths
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
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
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
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