afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury who among other things hath these words This Faith speaking of the Real Presence according to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the Church which being spread over the whole World is call'd Catholic now holds and hath held from the Primitive Times But you saith be to Berengarius believe that the Bread and Wine of our Lords Table remain unchanged as to their Substance after Consecration c. If this be true which you believe and maintain concerning the Body of Christ then that is false which is believed and taught of it by the Church over the whole World for as many as own the name of Christians and are really such do profess that in the Sacrament they receive the true Flesh of Christ and his true Blood the same which he took of the Virgin Most wonderfully strange that so absurd a Doctrine should have spread so universally in so short a time as our Discourser is pleas'd to allow it Guitmundus Rupertus Algerus and other Learned Men writ against him to the same effect And moreover this his Doctrine was condemn'd as false and himself as an Innovator in no less than Eight Councils and Synods before that of Lateran which miserable Synods as the Answerer proudly calls them may be supposed to have had as much Learning and Honesty and I am sure much more Authority than Twenty two such Sheets as his tho' stampt with an Imprimatur before them Now let us observe This Monstrous Absurd Barbarous and Impious Doctrine of Transubstantiation as our Discourser calls it in somewhat more than two Hundred years was so throughly establisht all over the Christian World that these Learned Authors and the Fathers of these Eight Councils assembled in several Kingdoms were so totally ignorant that their own Doctrine had its date from the Council of Nice or that the Opinion of Berengarius had been ever before publickly profest that they make no scruple of alledging the Antiquity Vniversality and Constant Practice of their own Doctrine as a most convincing and unanswerable Argument against his Interroga Graecos Armenios says Lantfranc seu cujuslibet nationis quoscunque homines uno ore hanc fidem i. e. Transubst se testabuntur habere I profess that if after this my most serious and impartial Enquiry concerning the Belief of the Ancient Fathers and the Catholic Church touching the Real Presence it should possibly be true that they all or generally agreed with our Discourser and his figurative Interpretation excluding the Substance I would lay aside all my Books and conclude once for all That even the Doctrine of Transubstantiation it self is more easie and rational than the true sense of the Fathers concerning it intelligible or attainable And tho I will not say with the Booksellers Wife at Paris That if the Primitive Fathers believ'd Transubstantiation She would no longer believe Christianity yet I may say if they did believe it and were mistaken a Christians Faith any further than it may be productive of good Works is the most indifferent thing in the World Our Discourser tells us of one John Scotus and Ratramnus and I know not who writing I know not what against this Doctrine of the Real Presence at least according to his Interpretation tho I know many Catholics understand some of them in a very Orthodox sense But to me it seems as impertinent to bring two or three private persons advancing their private Opinions against the Concurrent Testimonies of all Authors prior present and others since they wrote posterior to them besides the Definitions and Decrees of General Councils as it would be among us to produce the Authorities of John Milton and Junius Brutus to prove that it was lawful among the Jews for the People by their own Supream Power to murder their Kings and that in all Governments the People have the same Sovereign Authority to judge and punish even by Death their lawful hereditary Kings and Governours if they shall so think fit Now having the History of the Bible as well as they together with the express Command of God and constant Testimony and Practice of Learned Men through all Ages and publick Laws with Acts of Parliament to the contrary these Men may write till their Hands and Hearts ake to use out Discourser's expression before they shall perswade me to renounce the strongest Evidence imaginable in favour of their private Sentiments Whether our Discourser be of my mind or not I cannot tell but if he be I see no greater reason to believe John Scotus than John Milton Come we now to the Church Authority which so much offends him Our indulgent Mother according to her favourable Discipline permitted the Doctrine of Transubstantiation as she had done for many years that of the Consubstantiality to pass upward of Twelve Hundred years without any other judicial determination of the Modus as they call it than such as had been Originally planted in the hearts and minds of the Faithful and cultivated in every Age by Pious and Learned Men in their Sermons Catechisms and other Discourses as occasion hapned But Berengarius a Man fond of his own Notions and valuing himself much upon his own Reason resolved to set up for a new Light of the Church and among other Errors taught the figurative acceptation of the Words of Consecration as hath been before related Upon this he was admonisht by several Pious and Learned Catholics to retract betimes so new and pernicious a Heresie But the Arguments of sense procuring him a party among the Vulgar he prosecuted his design with great vigor until at last he was taken notice of by the Supream Church-Governors and in a Council at Rome An. Dom. 1050. his Doctrine was condemn'd and himself excommunicated At length having several times abjur'd this his Heresie and as often return'd to his Vomit he burnt the Book of Scotus from whence he confest to have suckt part of his Poyson renounc'd for the last time with all Sincerity his former Opinions and spending the residue of his days in Piety and Devotion died in the Unity of the Roman Catholic Church full of sorrow and repentance Jan. 6. An. Dom. 1088. as may be seen in Membranis Taureacens in Chronic. Clarii Floriacens Monach. S. Petri vivi in Will of Malmesbury l. 3. de gestis Reg. Angl. In Baldrico Burgaliensi Abbate and in the Manuscript B. Martini Turonensis Notwithstanding all this the Seeds of Heresie thus sown were not easily rooted out And besides some Catholics themselves taking occasion from this Heresie had writ-concerning this great Mystery according as they best apprenended it But sometimes the obscurity of their Expressions the double sense which they admitted and not clearly shewing what they themselves believed Misfortunes which happen to most men who write concerning such high Mysteries without Authority the Governours of the Church thought fit as the best means to obviate these Inconveniences to call a General Council under Pope Innocent the Third which was
and was Invisible I hope the two first Reasons will be taken off by consent And first it is understood I think by all Mat. 17. that the Body of Christ when he was transfigur'd did exist after a Supernatural manner and was freed for the time being from the clog and earthly limitations of common humane Bodies Secondly It is plain that after his Resurrection Jesus made his Body become Invisible The Text tells us That he appear'd in several Forms After that he appear'd in another Form unto two of them Mark 16. v. 12. Which I suppose is somewhat above Nature Also the third time when Jesus shewed himself to his Disciples at the Sea of Tiberias he had changed again his Form for they knew him not John c. 21. Nor was he known the first time by Mary Magdalen but was mistaken by her for the Gardiner But in Luke 24. It is clearly exprest That Jesus appear'd to his Disciples after the manner of a Spirit for it is said in v. 36. And as they thus spake Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and said unto them peace be unto you But they were terrified and affrighted and supposed that they seen a spirit Now altho' the Circumstances in this Text sufficiently denote that our Saviour came not to his Disciples progressively after the manner of humane Bodies but that eodem instante he appear'd in the midst of them which was the cause of their fear for they were told before that our Lord was risen Yet the preceding v. 31. of the same Chapter leads so manifestly to this Interpretation that there is no colour left to doubt for it is there written That after our Lord had been ignorantly entertain'd by the two Disciples at Emmaus at last Their eyes were opened and they knew him and he vanished out of their sight This agrees also with the account which we have from St. John c. 20. v. 19. Where it is said The same day at Evening when the Dores were shut came Jesus and stood in the midst of them The same Circumstance is also repeated in v. 26. In vain do ye therefore so often Object to us Worthy Fathers the necessity of believing our Senses in all things and upon all Occasions since you see how the Apostles themselves were deceived by them even concerning the real visible corporal Presence of Christ upon Earth As for St. Thomas and the Confirmation from the Evidence of his Senses our Saviour reproacht his want of Faith and suffer'd him to put his doubting hand into his Sacred Wounds not so much to shew him that he was meer Man as to convince them that he was God and Man God from his infinite Power in being able to make his Natural Body exist after the manner of a Spirit which they had seen before and were terrified at it And Man in that nevertheless he had the shape and Substance of that very Body in which he suffer'd Nor must we think that these Supernatural changes were done by chance or without the blessed design of the Divine Wisdome for the Disciples who hitherto had doubted concerning the great Article of the Resurrection of the Flesh were not only hereby convinced of this necessary truth but were also taught after what manner their Bodies should be raised from the dead Or as S. Paul says 1 Cor. c. 15. What Bodies they do become S. Paul gives them their Answer v. 36. Thou fool that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die Then telling us of the several differences between Bodies some more and some less glorified he proceeds v. 42. So also is the Resurrection of the Dead It is sown in Corruption it is raised in Incorruption It is sown in Dishonor it is raised in Glory It is sown in Weakness it is raised in Power It is sown a Natural Body it is raised a Spiritual Body And this our Saviour had before experimentally taught them by the differing and Spiritual manner of the Existence of his own Body confirming also has Divinity by that Power which he exercised upon it according to that of S. Matthew c. 28. v. 18. All Power is given unto me in Heaven and in Earth If then our common Sinful Bodies shall have this Glory Power and Spirituality when they are raised from the Dead and probably be subject then to the Soul as the Soul is now to the Body who will dare to prescribe Laws to the holy and spotless Body of our Lord united to his Divinity However it be the vindication of the Real Presence seems to concern your selves worthy Fathers or at least many other Protestants no less than Catholics and if that be admitted methinks Transubstantiation should not be so rudely refused Entrance For give me leave to ask you from what Authority you pretend to tell us That Christ is really Present in the Sacrament except you mean as in all other pious Duties If you deny this real Presence you stand separate from the whole Christian World Lutherans as well as Catholics which is no very good Argument that you are in the right If you confess it solve these difficulties your selves for it concerns you no less than us But if again you do not confess it then tell me I say what ground you have from Scripture to name those words except as a consequence from these This is my Body and upon the Supposition that at least the Substance of the Bread is become after Consecration the very Body of our Lord You tell us again That we do verily truly and indeed receive the very Body of Christ That born of the Virgin Mary which suffer'd for us and rose from the Dead Let me enquire again what Authority you have to use those words if you do not literally intend the thing Spiritual Graces proceed not from his Humanity but from his Divinity Faith is one of these Spiritual Graces and the immediate Gift of God and signifies only this at least in this place That Christ was the Son of God that he became Man that he died for us and rose again from the dead What hath this to do with eating his Body and drinking his Blood A Commemoration only of his Death it cannot mean nor could the Apostles so understand it except you can shew me some such like Metaphor used to express the memorial of a Man after his death But if neither before our Saviours Passion nor since amongst Jews Heathens or Christians such an Expression was ever used why must we believe that Christ spake or the Apostles understood different from all the expressions of mankind since the Creation of Adam When the Master of the House in Celebrating the Paschal Supper said This is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt true Bread was really deliver'd and the Memorial was proper When Moses said Behold the Blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you It was very Blood which Moses sprinkled on the People Exod. 24. v. 8.
you may not believe I have err'd through Popish Affectation I will produce also for my Justification the sound Judgment of your best Reformers Luther tells us I do not deny but that the Bishop of Rome is Resp tred propos hath been and ought to be first of all I believe he is above all other Bishops it is not lawful to deny his Supremacy Melancton the Phaenix of learning says That the Bishop of Rome is above all the Church Epist ad Card. Belay that it is his Office to Judge in Controversies to govern to watch over the Priests to keep all Nations in Conformity and Vnity of Doctrines Somaisius The Pope of Rome hath been without controversie the first Metropolitan of Italy and not only in Italy nor only in the West but in all the World The other Metropolitans have been Chief in their respective Districts but the Pope of Rome Tract ad Sermondum hath been Metropolitan and Primate not only of some particular Diocess but of All. Grotius for whom I have a great respect and think him a very learned Man says the same thing and proves this Supremacy belongs to the Pope de Jure divino Annot. Sup. Nov. Test This also inferr'd from Episcopal Government by Jacob Cartwright Husse Beza and many others Now Fathers you cannot say but these Eminent Protestants were Men of great Learning and that they had searcht and understood Scripture and History as well as your selves and if my Judgment concurs with them in this Point as I profess it doth then have I found that lawful Supream Authority which I searched and where this Authority is there is Infallibility Or if you can shew me Infallibility elsewhere there also I am sure I will believe a sufficient Authority The differences between them I cannot easily discern Infallibility is from God and therefore we believe what is dictated thereby as from God Supream Ecclesiastical Authority is also from God and therefore we obey what it commands us as the Ordinance of God Infallibility concludes our Reasons and binds our Consciences Supream Church Authority binds also our Consciences and Supersedes all private Reason Infallibility is above all humane Authority The highest Church Authority can have no such Authority upon Earth above it Infallibility establisheth and supports Authority Authority declares and makes manifest the Infallibility Infallibility and the Promises of Christ fail when Authority is destroy'd Authority lives not when Infallibility ceaseth In a word were there no Infallibility as I believe there is I would still submit my Reason and regulate my Conscience according to the Decrees of the Supream lawful Ecclesiastical Authority This is my Belief pray blame me not I am humble and have read Scripture and upon my word I am Sincere You may believe otherwise I presume not to Judge you After all this worthy Fathers I must not forget to tell you that I still lay under some Difficulties before I could throughly assent to this Authority now believ'd in the Church of Rome For you had often told me that She had fallen from her Primitive Purity and separated her self from that One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church Answ to Prot. Quaeries p. 10. Declar'd also to be Antichristian and the true Church Latent and Invisible by that famous Napper to King James Brocard Fulk Sebast Francus Hospinian and many others Now good Fathers if She was once a pure and uncorrupted Church I presume She remains so still for give me leave to tell you I do not well see how She can separate from her self for Mr. Chillingworth an Eminent Author among you lookt upon it as a thing ridiculous if not impossible for says he In the Case of the Church of England p. 174. We have not forsaken but only reformed another part of it the Catholic Church which part we our selves are and I suppose you will not go about to perswade us that we have forsaken our selves or our own Communion Nor yet can She separate from the Catholic Church for the same Learned person tells us immediately after And if you urge that we joined our selves to no other part therefore were separated from the whole I say it follows not inasmuch as our selves were a part of it and still continued so and therefore can no more separate from the whole than from our selves But next supposing a part may separate from it self or from the whole pray be plain with me worthy Fathers and tell me where that part or that whole remain'd from whence the Church of Rome separated For Separation first supposes the Existence of the thing from which Separation is made and is a deadly fault and foretold by the Apostles as a mischief which would happen in the last days Remember ye the words which were spoken before of the Apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ how that they told you that there should be mockers in the last time who should walk after their own ungodly lusts these be they who Separated themselves sensual Jude v. 17 18 19. having not the Spirit Let us confider one another to provoke unto love and to good works Heb. 10.24 not forgetting the assembling our selves together and so much the more Act. 20.30 as ye see the day approaching Also of your selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them Now the Church of Rome was not only visible but a very Eminent Church St. Paul tells us Rom. 1. That her Faith is spoken of throughout the whole World And certainly that pure Church frâ—m which She Separated must needs be by so much the more Eminent as Her Apostacy was notorious which forsook her Tell me therefore where that pure Church remain'd that we may retrieve the true Christian Doctrine If she Separated from her self then besides Mr. Chill answer I add these Contradictions must be reciev'd as Truths The Church of Rome was at the same time Orthodox and Heterodox pure and corrupt sound but yet rotten Or if you can distinguish them shew me the Orthodox Pure and Sound part which was left by the Heterodox corrupt and rotten Church of Rome declare the time when the Separation was made and where both were to be found These are plain Questions and I must have a plain Answer if it can be had If you say She Separated from the Catholic Church then tell me where that Catholic Church remain'd from which She Separated and where She may be found for in good faith Fathers my Salvation is highly concern'd in this Question and I must be satisfied If you tell me She is invisible as others have done you plainly abuse me for I have long since learnt from your selves as a Maxim in Philosophy that de non apparentibus non existentibus eadem est ratio It is the same thing not at all to be as not at all to appear Besides excuse me if I take the word of our Saviour and his Apostles and all the
stumbling block to the World had he intended only a figurative Interpretation that his Cruelty which is most impious to imagine would have exceeded his Mercy especially if it be true as I believe it is and hope shall be able to prove that the whole Christian World for a thousand years together after his Ascension universally concurr'd in the firm Belief of a literal Sense and practis'd accordingly Good God! So many reputed Saints so many Martyrs and so many holy Men dying in the guilt and many of them in defence of gross Idolatry This to me to use the expression of our Discourser is more than ten Thousand Demonstrations He tells us indeed that some Learned Catholic Authors have declar'd their Opinions that the Doctrine which holds the substance of Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor Scripture p. 5. And what then They do not exclude the Doctrine of the Real presence in a literal sense nor do I know that they did ever doubt of Transubstantiation But most of them have written particularly in defence of it and Durandus wrote a Book consisting of nine parts against Berengarius who oppos'd it Now tho this might be the private Opinion of these Men yet there are it may be thousands as Learned as themselves of another Opinion and all this without either prejudicing or helping the Doctrine it self Our Discourser cannot think any Man so senseless to believe that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hands and gave away himself from himself with his own hands and yet we find a very sensible Father and one much esteemed by all parties I mean S. Augustin made no such difficulty to believe all this For in his Comment upon these words Et ferebatur in manibus suis and he was carried in his own hands he speaks thus of Christ And can this be possible in Man Was ever any Man carried in his own hands c. How this can be literally understood of David we cannot discover Comm. in Ps 33. but in Christ we found it verified for Christ was carried in his own hands when giving his own very Body he said This is my Body But if Christ carried only the Figure of his Body it was not only possible for David but for any Man else to have done the same Methinks our Discourser should have replied to this obvious Answer when he made his Objection And thus much for the Authority of Scripture Next he tells us that this Doctrine is not grounded upon the perpetual Belief of the Christian Church and for this he produces many Authorities of the Fathers which may be reduc't to these Heads either where they tell us That the Elements are a Sign and Figure of Christs Body or that they remain in their former Substance or that they go into the Draught and our flesh encreased by them or that they are not to be taken according to the Letter for all which he brings some Citations Now altho' the Fathers have been their own best Interpreters shewing plainly in other places how these are to be understood agreeable to the Catholic Doctrine yet that it may appear more Evident I shall instance in some other plain expressions and leave the Ballance to the Judgment of the Reader First then wheresoever it is said that the Elements are Signs or Figures there no more is said than what the Catholics believe and profess nay more that it is a part of the Definition of a Sacrament to be a Sign That is to say that the unbloody Sacrifice of Christs Body in the Sacrament offer'd in a spiritual manner is a Figure or Sign of the bloody Sacrifice offer'd once for all upon the Cross after a natural manner answerable to the words of S. Paul 1 Cor. 11. Ye shall shew the Lords death until he come About the words we agree concerning the interpretation our Discourser may dispute as long as he pleases Next That the Elements remain in their form and substance This passage of Theodoret hath been in part answer'd before where he tells us That they are to be ador'd And from thence we may conclude that he means the nature of the Accidents for those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which this Greek Father useth contain every kind of Essence and Nature as well of Accidents as of Substances And so again he expounds himself saying that we may see and touch the said Colour and Form which have reference only to those Accidents and in this sense the Elements may admit of Co-adoration with the Body of our Saviour as when himself was Cloth'd upon Earth otherwise not And Theodoret is blam'd by the Centurists Cent. 5. c. 10. Because he affirms That the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the Invocation of the Priest are chang'd and made other things than they were before They mean not Signs I hope for more than that they believed themselves But let us hear St. Augustin As with a faithful heart and Mouth we receive the Mediator of God and Man Christ Jesus who gives us his Flesh to be eaten and his Blood to be drunk altho' it seems to be a thing more full of horror to eat Mans flesh than to kill it and to drink Mans blood than to shed it L. 2 Contr. adv Leg. Proph. But sure it is not more horrible to eat Mans flesh in figure than to kill a man in good earnest c. Let us hear him again We have heard says he our Master who always speaks truth recommending to us our Ransom his Blood for he spoke of his Body and Blood which Body he call'd Meat and his Blood Drink But there are some who do not believe they said This is a hard saying who can hear it 'T is hard but to the obstinate that is incredible but to the Incredulous L. de verb. Apost Serm. 2. But is the Figure so hard a saying I think not Next St. Ambrose a co-temporary and particular Friend of St. Augustin It may be you will say De his qui Myst Init. c. 9. why do you tell me that I receive the Body of Christ when as I see quite another thing We have this therefore yet to prove How many Examples therefore do we produce to shew that it is not what Nature fram'd but what the Benediction hath Consecrated and that the force of Benediction is greater than of Nature because by Benediction Nature her self is chang'd Moses held a Rod in his hand he cast it from him and it became a Serpent Where he tells of all those real Transmutations and Miracles made by Moses After which he goes on We see therefore that the power of Grace is far beyond that of Nature and yet we have only mention'd hitherto the effects of Grace in the blessing of Prophets now if the blessing of men were of so great efficacy as to change the Nature of things what shall we
say of the Divine Consecration where the very words of Christ our Saviour are operative Then he speaks of the Creation of the World out of nothing and goes on If therefore Christ by his word was able to make something of nothing shall he not be thought able to change those things which are into other things which they were not But what need of Arguments Let us propose his own Example and assert the truth of this Mystery by that of his Incarnation When our Lord Jesus was born of Mary was it a Natural generation c. This Body which we make in the Sacrament is that which was born of the Virgin Why do ye here require the order of Nature in the Body of Christ when as above all Nature Christ was born of a Virgin The true Flesh of Christ which was crucified which was buried And are all these real Transmutations and Miraculous Supernatural Examples produc't only to prove a figurative Change conferring some invisible Blessing Can our Discourser understand it so and no otherwise Indeed I think he had best retreat to the first three Hundred years after Christ as some others of your late Writers have done contrary to what I had ever been taught among you who generally extended the Purity of the Roman Doctrine as far as the first Five Hundred years and accordingly in my Discourses with Catholics I always asserted that we did receive the Roman Doctrine until about that time but the Truth would glare too much in our Discoursers Eyes if he should walk in the light of those two latter Centuries when the Church began to be freed from her Persecutions and holy Fathers had greater liberty of Preaching and Teaching the true Christian Faith in its Extent But we shall follow him as high as he pleases We produce next St. Cyril of Jerusalem who liv'd in the Age before St. Ambrose and St. Augustine his words are these Do not then consider it as bare Bread or bare Wine for it is the Body and Blood of Christ according to the word of our Saviour himself For tho' sense should suggest this to thee yet let thy Faith so confirm this as that thou judge not the matter from the Tast And again Hoe Sciens c. This knowing and accounting it as most certain that this Bread which we see is not Bread tho' our Tast do tell us that it is Bread but it is the Body of Christ and the Wine which we behold tho' it seem Wine to our sense of Tast yet it is not Wine but the Blood of Christ Catech. 4. This was spoke after a Catechistical manner in which high Metaphors and Figures are not generally very frequent he was besides esteem'd by all as a learned Person and of this Book none ever doubted We come now to the third Age in which S. Cyprian treating of our Lords Supper says The Bread which our Lord gave to his Disciples is changed not in outward appearance but in Substance and by the Omnipotency of the Word It is made Flesh And as in the person of Christ the Humanity did appear and the Divinity lay hid so in the visible Sacrament the Divine Essence hath ineffably infused it self Serm. de coena Dom. This is so clear a passage that some of the Sacramentaries for want of a better Answer pretend it was not writ by St. Cyprian altho' at the same time they are forc't to confess that it is of great Antiquity and had a Learned Author But something must be said and Confidence goes a great way I have already spoken of Justin Martyr in the second Age and come now to the first Age even in the days of the Apostles let us hear then the holy Martyr S. Epist ad Smyrnaeos Ignatius the Disciple of S. John who speaking of the Heretics of his time says thus They do not allow of Eucharists and Oblations because they do not believe the Eucharist to be the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffer'd for our Sins and which the Father in his Mercy raised again from the dead A strange concurrence through all Ages of most extraordinary Tropes and Figures I name not St. Andrew because the Authority is suspected Nor is it necessary to multiply Testimonies of the Fathers which we might have done because they are in truth but like dead Weights on both sides until we shall have put life into them by such reasonable Interpretations as reconciling them first to themselves may make them plainly speak forth the Catholic Doctrine which I refer to the Conclusion But what do Protestants think of all these Fathers Why truly they blame them All and tell us that they were mistaken Dr. Humphrey says Gregory and Austin brought Transubstantiation into the English Church Jesuit part 2. p. 627 The Centurists charge S. Chrysostome S. Ambrose and Eusebius For not writing well of Transubstantiation Peter Martyr for the same reason blames S. Cyril Vrsinus S. Cyprian The Learned Melancton writes thus upon this Subject L. 3. Ep. Zuing Oecol f. 132. There is no care says he that hath more troubled my mind than this of the Eucharist And not only my self have weighed what might be said on either side but I have also sought out the Judgment of old Writers touching the same And when I have laid all together I find no good reason that may satisfie a Conscience departing from the propriety of Christs words This is my Body Many other Testimonies of Learned Protestants I omit at present for Brevity sake In the mean time I suppose all these may be sufficient to ballance the Substance of Theodoret even when you have made the most of it that in reason you ought or else my Reason and Sense are much more deceived in this Case than in that of the Sacrament But come we to the Third Point That the Elements go into the draught and our flesh encreased by them Hear what St. Chrysostome says Do you see Bread Do you see Wine Do these go into the draught like other common meat Far be it from thee to imagine it Hom. do Euchar. in Encoen When our Discourser hath reconcil'd his passage of Origen with this of S. Chrysostome let him then read any Catholic Author and he will tell him how he shall understand the Authority which he hath here produc't of which more hereafter Now for the encrease of the flesh I find this Explication in St. Greg. Nyssen Orat. Catech. c. 36. and 37. Even as a little Leaven doth make the whole Mass like it self so that Body which is made Immortal by God entring into our Body doth transfer and change it into its self And after That Body is joyned with the Bodies of the faithful that by the Coujunction with the same Immortal Body Man may be made partaker of Immortality So S. Cyril of Alexandria As a spark of fire lighting upon Hay or Straw doth presently inflame it all so the Word of God joyned to our corruptible
hath styled it which I hope to prove hereafter If the second then to use the Argument and Words of our Discourser p. 30. Christanity would become a most uncertain and endless thing for if we may thus change our Faith in such high and fundamental Doctrines as these are I know not what security we have that we shall not in time change our Faith in other necessaries and at length lose it all But to pin up the Basket as we say I shall conclude with the Testimonies of Calvin and Beza men to whom the Church of England is obliged for a great part of her Reformation Calvin upon 1 Cor. 11.24 Take eat this is my Body says thus Nor doth Christ only offer to us the benefits of his Death and Resurrection but that Body it self in which he suffered and rose again And again Instit l. 4. c. 17. Being made partakers of his Substance we perceive also the vertue of it in the Communication of all good things I know no other Substance he had spiritual or corporal but that which was born of the Blessed Virgin And of the Lutherans he says If they so explain their meaning that whilst the Bread is delivered there is annext to it the exhibition of his Body because the Truth is inseparable from its Sign I should not much oppose them And to strengthen this Assertion of Calvin I shall add the Confession of Beza and others of the same Sect related by Hospinian Hist Sacram. parte altera p. 251. We confess that in the Cup of our Lord not only all the Benefits of Christ but the very substance of the Son of man I say that very Flesh and that very Blood which he poured out for us not only significatively symbolically typically or figuratively as a remembrance of one absent but truly and certainly represented exhibited and offer'd not as naked Symbols but as having from God himself promising and offering the very thing it self truly and certainly joyned to them Now the manner by which the thing it self i.e. the very Body and the very Blood of our Lord is joyned with the Symbols we say it is Symbolical or Sacramental But we call it a Sacramental manner not that it is only Figurative but that it truly and certainly represents under the Species of visible Things that which God exhibits and offers with the Symbols that is as I said before the very Body and Blood of Christ And then he tells us That he differs with others concerning the manner of the Presence only but for the very Thing and Presence it self he retains and defends it And now Reverend Fathers I must acquaint you that whilst I was transcribing this very last Paragraph I was inform'd that there was an Answer lately publisht to Two Discourses printed at Oxford which contained in them the Testimonies of these Learned Protestants before mentioned I stopt my Pen bought the Book and read it over with great care I shall not at present speak any thing more of it in particular than what relates to this very Subject but in general give me leave to tell you that me thoughts this Answerer might very well have spar'd his Apology at last p. 125. for not having insisted more largely upon some points since I have not seen Twenty two Sheets written with so much magisterial Confidence and in my judgment with so little Substance even among all the Pamphlets that have come out on both sides from the Death of the late King to this present day but I leave the further examination to the Conclusion of this Discourse First we thank him for his plainness in delivering his opinion concerning the Real Presence which is the subject Matter in Debate and by which he tells us is meant no more than invisible Power and Grace in exclusion of the Real Presence of Christs Natural Body even after a spiritual manner Whether the Church of England will thank him for it I know not I am sure I was otherwise instructed and believed otherwise whilst in your Communion But let us hear what he says to these Testimonies He endeavours to elude their most plain indubitable sense and grammatical construction even according to the common Reason and Understanding of all Mankind these several ways First he tell us that Becanus says the Calvinists deny the Body and Blood of Christ to be truly really and substantially present in the Eucharist Not I hope according to that sense which our Answerer would make Calvin and others give of those and such like expressions But sure our Answerer might have collected among his other Protestant Relics an account of a rigider sort of Calvinists who reform'd even upon Calvin himself and yet retain'd the name of Calvinists But what doth Calvin himself say as this Answerer recites out of Hospinian Why that Christ is our Food because by the incomprehensible Vertue of the holy Spirit he inspires his Life into us that he may communicate it to us no less than the Vital Juice is diffused from the Root into all the Branches of the Tree c. No less than so then sure it is as substantial a Communication of Christ's Natural Body after a spiritual manner as the Oxford Discourser in that place pretends to for if Calvin and this Answerer do not believe that the Vital Juice of a Tree is a Substance tho' whilst a Juice more spiritual and that the very Substance of the Tree is substantially nourished and increased thereby I fear they will both prove as bad Philosophers as Divines But before I proceed any further I must inform or mind our Answerer that tho' Catholics believe Christ's Natural Body to be in the Sacrament yet they deny it to be there bodily i.e. Modo Corporeo and tho' his Flesh be there yet not Fleshly nor yet doth his Natural Body leave the highest Heavens These premised because we shall have occasion to make these distinctions I come to next to Beza His words as recited by the Answerer are these We do not say that in the Eucharist there is only a Commemoration of the Death of our Lord Jesus Christ nor do we say that in it we are made partakers only of the Fruits of his Death and Passion but we joyn the Ground with the Fruits affirming with St. Paul that the Bread which by God's appointment we break is the participation of the Body of Christ crucified for us the Cup which we drink the Communion of the true Blood that was shed for us and that in the very same Substance which he received in the Womb of the Virgin and which he carried up with him into the Heavens And afterwards For this honor we allow to God that tho' the Body of Jesus Christ be now in Heaven and not elsewhere and we on Earth and not elsewhere yet are we made partakers of his Body and Blood after a spiritual manner i.e. modo spirituali and by the means of Faith P. 50. I am afraid Fathers this Answerer plays