St. Paul proves quite the contrary demonstrating if there be a Testament there must be true Blood and so concludes Whereupon neither the first Testament was dedicated without Blood and without sheding of Blood is no remission Lastly You urge besides his Blood which is said to be shed which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first Celebration of this Sacrament We do not dispute with you the actual effusion of Christ's natural Blood which was a sanguinary Sacrifice But can you deny that in those words you alledge from St. Luke where Christ's Blood is said to be shed is contained a mystical Sacrifice St. Austin calls this the Oblation of Christ's Body on the Altar St. Cyprian four times in the same Epistle the Dominical Sacrifice St. Gregorie Nazianzen the unbloody Sacrifice Two Sacrifices we acknowledge with the holy Fathers different in manner not distinct in substance The same Blood spilt naturally once upon the Cross and mystically offered daily on the Altar Because the same Caracteristical mark of true Blood is attributed to both the Sacrifices Viz. the remission of Sins by effusion of Blood. Hence St. Matthew speaking of Christ's Blood in the Sacrament says that it is shed for many for remission of sins And St. Paul in the foregoing lines without sheding of Blood is no remission Article II. Examen of your Second Proof YOU are willing to stand in the second instance to the plain concession of many learned Roman Catholic Writers concerning the necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation And because you begin with the concession of the acute Schoolman let us examin what was the opinion of Scotus Scotus distinguishing two sorts or Classes of People the worthy and unworthy Receivers thus delivers himself It is undoubtedly to be held the Good not only Sacramentally but also Spiritually receive the Bad only Sacramentally that is subjoyns Scotus under the visible species the Flesh of Christ that Flesh which was born of the Virgin Mary they do not mystically receive the benefit of the Sacrament This he proves from St. Gregorie the Great 's determination the true Flesh and true Body of Christ is received by Sinners and unworthy Communicants in essence not in benefit Then Scotus quotes St. Austin for the same evidence and concludes with the testimony of St. Paul to the same purpose This acute Schoolman asking afterwards q. 3. whether the Bread be changed into the Body of Christ Answers num 13. that it is changed into the Body of Christ 'T is true he brings in one objecting n. 4. n. 7. that our Saviour's Words may receive a more facile Sense than that of Transubstantiation And Scotus replies the more difficile sense is not to be admitted if it be not true but if it be true and can be proved evidently to be so then the more difficile ought to be chosen and this is the case of the present Article He pushes on the resumpt But why did the Church prefer the more difficile sense when she might have chosen a more facile in appearance I answer says Scotus the Scriptures are expounded by the same Spirit by which they were dictated and 't is to be supposed the Catholic Church expounded them by the same Spirit by which truth is delivered taught by the Spirit of truth for it was not in the power of the Church to make that true but in the power of God the institutor Now what is this to your purpose For if you take the concession of Scotus you must profess both the real Presence and Transubstantiation And this necessarily deduc'd from Scripture Because the Scripture efficaciously moved the Church to declare for the same Doctrin according to Scotus's words it was not in the power of the Church to make that true or not true The Church then necessarily followed Scriptural evidence And what was necessarily compulsive to the Church was not otherwise to Scotus who tacitly intimated the cogent necessity of Scriptures Authority for the real change of the substance of Bread into the Body of Christ instancing it was determined by the Church for Transubstantiation Bellarmin was of Opinion that according to the two literal senses of this is my Body read in the acute School-man the sole evidence of Scripture could not in Scotus's mind abstracting from the declaration and universal practice of the Church evidently compel the admittance of Transubstantiation Bellarmin was severe enough upon Scotus Yet he diminished much this severity saying the acute Schoolman added because the Catholic Church has declared in a general Council the true meaning of Scripture Transubstantiation may manifestly be proved from Scripture so declared But of what mind Scotus was the foregoing Page will sufficiently remind the unprejudic'd Reader Nor can you conclude Bellarmin himself granted evidence of Scripture was wanting for the Roman Cause because he said Scotus's assertion was not altogether improbable In like manner you may argue against the strongest Demonstration in nature You may frankly concede an acute Objection not altogether improbable and notwithstanding this Concession stick fast to the former Evidence of your Demonstration This is Bellarmin's case as the following words out of the same place testifie For although adds Bellarmin Scripture which we have heretofore alledged may seem so clear to us that it can compel a moderate man ther 's evidence of Scripture for Transubstantiation and Bellarmin's opinion Yet the acuteness of bright understandings leaves some doubt This is what is not altogether improbable But we ought to reflect these words of Bellarmin not altogether Improbable are grounded upon a meer supposal of two literal Senses which touches not our Controversie For Bellarmin plainly denies a figurative Exposition probable of our Saviours words speaking of things as they are instituted For thus he argues These words this is my Body necessarily infer either the true change of Bread as Catholics believe or a metaphorical mutation as Calvinists contend This Calvinistical Sense he had already declared as improbable saying we will generally demonstrate that 't is not probable our Saviour would figuratively speak And for the Lutherans Error holding both substance of Bread and the Body together in the Sacrament he says it shares not in the sense of our Saviour's words Thus the true change of Bread into the Body of Christ naturally follows according to Bellarmin from the plain and evident Text of Scripture Durandus divides the substance of Bread into Matter and Form. Then adds the Bread is converted by conseration into the Body of our Lord and the Form perishing the Matter is animated with the Soul of Christ A strange manner of Explication But what doth this avail your cause For if the Form of Bread perishes in Durandus's explication and the Matter be animated with the Soul of Christ the remaining Accidents can neither claim Matter nor Form of Bread and so
the whole Substance of Bread is wanting But Durandus calls your Sentiment holding Bread remains after Consecration the Doctrin of profane Novelty Suarez and Vasquez treat Durandus as one Divine doth anothers Opinion But you might have well omitted their names for one that is moderately learn'd in Divinity knows how copiously they both shew from Scripture and Fathers the Roman Catholic Doctrin Occham You have not faithfully delivered this Divine's Authority who thus answers to the second Query I say that in the Sacrament is true Transubstantiation Then he delivers four manners of understanding this Transubstantiation 1. That the Bread may remain with the Body 2. That the Substance of the Bread may suddenly be removed away 3. That it may return to Matter the common subject of all or receive some other Form. 4. That it may be reduced to nothing He admits all four as possible The first manner he prefers in these words which are your Objection The first manner may be held because it is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture and is more reasonable and easier than the other three manners These are Scholastic Opinions And therefore this Divine leaving them adheres to the true sense of Transubstantiation in these following words Yet because we find extant the Churches determination contrary to this exposition and all Doctors universally hold that the substance of Bread remains not there in the Sacrament Therefore I also hold that the substance of Bread remains not but the species of Bread and with this outward shape of Bread coexistent the Body of Christ Will you acknowledge what this Divine holds and professes Gabriel Biel. You have corrupted Biel. These are his words Although it be expresly delivered in Scripture that the Body of Christ is truly contain'd under the species of Bread yet we find not express in the Canon of the Scripture how the Body of Christ is there whether by conversion of some thing into himself or whether without conversion the Body begins to be with the Bread the substance and accidents of Bread remaining This Author is so far from speaking what you force him to say as to any thing expressed in Scripture a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after consecration that he proves we ought to believe the contrary sense contained in Scripture And this upon two accounts 1. Although the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament be not in this Divine's opinion evidently couch'd yet it is sufficiently particularized in the Canon of the Scripture For if this which was Bread is Christ's Body according to our Saviour's words this is my Body and Christ's true Body be there expresly delivered in Scripture as Biel affirms it necessarily folows that the Substance of Bread is changed For how can this which was Bread be Christ's true Body and not lose its own substance 2. He expounds the Scripture after this same manner from the Lateran Council St. Austin St. Ambrose and then concludes From these and many other authorities of Saints 't is held that the Body of Christ is in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation of the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ Does this favour the Protestants You named but expressed not Melchior Canus's authority who says the Body and Blood of Christ was offered in the Sacrifice and his proof is the evident Testimony of St. Luke This I think prejudices us not in the least Petrus Ab Alliaco You have misrepresented Ab Alliaco who disputing upon meer possibilities proposes among others two Questions First Whether it is not possible that the Body of Christ may remain united to the substance of Bread in the Sacrament Secondly Whether the substance of Bread may not be suddenly removed away by divine power the accidents only remaining with Christ's Body This Divine thinks neither impossible and prefers the first as more rational and conformable to Scriptures These are his words 'T is possible the Body of Christ may assume the substance of Bread and this manner is not repugnant to reason or to the authority of Scripture it is more easie and more rational than that manner which pretends the substance of Bread leaves the accidents Now for the second It is not impossible to God that the substance of Bread may be suddenly elsewhere convey'd the species remaining in the place coexistent to the Body of Christ this manner would not be so rational as the first All this is upon possibilities But not to enlarge in Scholastic Opinions when matters of Faith are debated Cannot I dispute of what is possible but you will necessarily deduce I deny the being of what is actually present If I should say 't is possible God may create another World and People it with another Generation of Creatures can you deduce from this that there is no necessity of admitting any Men alive at this present in the whole Universe Cajetan 'T is true writ the Scripture did not evidently enforce the Roman Catholic Tenet Great Wits speak sometimes without consideration Yet the Good Cardinal retracted afterwards his Error in these words We can prove Christ's real presence from the words of the Gospel And thus in some manner amended as Soto remarks what was before amiss You instance the words you object out of Cajetan in the Roman Edition are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. I Answer a worthy remark to demonstrate the vigilancy of the Roman See was not wanting to blot out Innovation in its very first rise and appearance Bishop Fisher that glorious Martyr of the Church of Rome confesseth we cannot prove from the bare words of Scripture that Priests consecrate the true Body and Blood of Christ I shall not dispute whether this concern our present Controversie or not but I 'le beg you 'll take the following Explication of the Pious Bishop that is continues the holy Martyr in the same place not because this thing is now doubtful but because the certainty of this Doctrin cannot be gathered so strongly from the bare words of the Gospel as from the Father's Interpretation together with the continued practice of so long a time surviving in succeeding Posterity The blessed Bishop gives us this reason why he provoked to the Fathers lest any one should says he pertinaciously adhere to the pure words of Scripture despising Fathers Authorities as Luther did If this will not suffice I 'le translate when you require it the Fourth Chapter of this same Book wherein Bishop Fisher proves the Bread changed into Christ's Body from the three Evangelists And I 'le rank your Objections collected from Luther's Instances and Oecolampadius's Objections on one Page and on the opposite place Bishop Fisher's Solutions to them both in vindication of the Roman Catholic Assertion I finish this Scholastic Disceptation with this Querie Whether you would not think it weakness in
have said to Theodoretus that is the outward shape of Bread remains And if these Words immediately following what you objected had been cited the difficulty would have been removed They the inward Substance of Bread and Wine pass by the operation of the Holy Ghost into a Divine Nature yet remaining in the propriety of their Nature It is only the Proprieties of the Nature of the Bread and Wine the Colour and the Tast that remain The Substance is changed For how could the inward Substance of Bread and Wine pass by Divine operation into Christ's Body and not cease to be how can a Protestant pass into the Roman Catholic Church and become a pious Member thereof and not truly cease to be a Protestant This Gelasius is not the learned Pope Gelasius and I need not labour to prove this Your own Critics write that that Treatise de duabus naturas whence you borrowed this Objection belongs to some other of the same Name I shall instance only one reason This Author ranks the Works of Eusebius Caesariensis among those of the Orthodox Fathers which cannot be said of the pious and learned Pope Gelasius who numbers the same Eusebius in his own Authentic Works with Apocryphal Writers There is then not one of our Popes against Transubstantiation And if you cannot alledg one Pope from the beginning of Christianity who teaches contrary to what is now professed in the Roman Church concerning this contested Article of Faith is it not a great Argument that it was alwaies taught in the Church of God Article IX Upon Facundus FAcundus the African Bishop justifying Theodorus Mopsuestenus who had said That Christ also received the adoption of Sons reasons thus Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of Adoption both when he was circumcised and baptized and the Sacrament of Adoption may be called Adoption as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood is by us called his Body and Blood. The intern Grace of the Holy Ghost received in Baptism properly constitutes us the true Sons adoptive of God which could not be conferr'd on our Saviour for he was enriched with the plenitude of perfection and was the natural Son of God. Yet Christ may be said Facundus urges to receive the Adoption of Sons because he vouchsafed to receive Baptism the Sacrament of Adoption Then seeking an Example to verify that Baptism may be called Adoption though it was not but only contain'd the Grace of Adoption was forced instancing the Blessed Sacrament barely to consider the Sacrament in the outward Species of Bread in the Eucharist which may be called the Body and Blood of Christ because it contains the Body and Blood of Christ What is contain'd in Baptism is it not the proper Grace of Adoption and what is contained in the Consecrated Species is the true Body and Blood of Christ Can any after this believe that what you have objected prejudices in the least the Universal and received Doctrin of the Christian Church of Bread and Wine substantially chang'd in the Sacrament into the proper and true Body and Blood of Christ What you repeat by way of Appendix the Names of some Catholic Divines is inconsiderable Only this I can say you might have more prudently omitted them in your own behalf than chang'd their Words in detriment to the Catholic Doctrin For Scotus only says that the truth of some Articles is more explicit or manifest in the Lateran Decrees than it was in the Symbols of the Apostles or in the Athanasian Creed or that of Nice and in a word what ever is here defin'd in the Council of Lateran is to be held as a sincere part of our Faith. Durandus does not say that he would have been of a contrary Opinion had not the Church defin'd for Transubstantiation but only tacitly insinuates that he would have made use of the Bread and Wine remaining with the Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was possible to God though really false in order to solve some Objections had not the Canon of the Church interven'd Nor ought we to be surprised at this For Durandus ordinarily walked on the brink of Faith in Assertions and therefore merited the Title of Temerarius Doctor in the Church of God. These are his Words The Substance of Bread and Wine is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ yet although this be really true it was possible to God that the Body of Christ might have been in the Sacrament with the Substance of Bread which is not really true for the Church has decreed the contrary and she is presum'd not to err in her decisions Therefore holding the Bread chang'd into Christ's Body I answer to the contrary Objections Tunstal Bishop of Durham says from the beginning of Christianity no body doubted of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament and that the Learned Ancient Writers look'd upon the manner how the Bread passed into Christ's Body as inscrutable and not to be searched into lest we should seem to tempt Christ with the Capernaits doubting how this can be But through God-almighty's power to whom nothing is impossible the change of Bread into Christ's Body by Transubstantiation seem'd to Innocent the Third and those who sat with him in Council to agree most with these Words of Christ This is my Body And he censures those who deny this change with impudent boldness and opposes them to Christ saying If we believe them who profess your Error neither Christ nor the Holy Ghost can change Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body whose Word made all things of nothing Tell me what was Erasmus's Thought and I 'le answer what Religion he was of In some places he favours the Lutherans oftentimes he 's a Catholic I am sure he 's not a Protestant in that Epistle to Conradus If you are persuaded there 's nothing besides Bread and Wine in the Sacrament I had rather be torn in pieces than profess what you profess If Alphonsus say ther 's seldom mention in Ancient Writers concerning Transubstantiation these seldom Intimations are sufficient to shew that 't was always taught in the Church of God which ought to convince any unbyased Understanding CHAP. II. An Account of the coming in of Transubstantiation I Have already done this to your hand 'T was instituted by our Saviour I suppose then you mean a particular Account of the coming in of the Error against Transubstantiation and by what attempts and degrees it was advanced against the Romish Church The first Opposers of this Doctrin were the Capharnaits who scandaliz'd at our Saviour's Promise cry'd out How can this Man give us his Flesh to eat This was seconded with the Complaint of his own Disciples This is a hard saying and who can hear it Both were taxed with Incredulity as St. John writes in his Sixth Chapter And St. Austin calls them Heretics Judas heading them as their
Prince and Leader in whom without our envy you may triumph and glory How often have you been incredulous with the Capharnaits saying How can he give us his Flesh How often with the unfaithfull Disciples murmured who can endure this Doctrin A second attempt was as St. Paul delivers made by the Corinthians who not distinguishing the Body of our Lord in the Sacrament from Bread and Wine became incredulous Not believing Not believing what St. Austin replies the true Body of Christ to be contain'd in the Eucharist A third Essay must be acknowledged in the Simonits Menandrians Gnostics and Marcionists who placing in Christ only a Phantasm indirectly rejected the verity of Christ's true Body and Blood in the Sacrament A fourth Opposition was from some of the Arians who thirsting after Spiritual Grace were not solicitous for any Corporal Presence as we learn from St. Cyril and St. Gregory Nazianzen In the Year 740. we read of certain Heretics meeting together for the taking away of Images who gave this reason That our Lord having left no Image of himself but Bread which is the Image of his Body we ought to make no other Image of our Lord. This Conventicle which then was esteemed Heretical in the Christian World you mention make Orthodox and oppose it to the Doctrin of Transubstantiation You are here again mistaken for there was no Sect of Men who professed at this time in any place of the World your Opinion against Transubstantiation For these Heretics taking the word Image interiourly for the Substance it self said that as our Saviour deified Flesh which suffered for man's redemption so constituting the Eucharistic Bread not a false Image of his natural Flesh he did ordain it should be made the Priest mediating by the sanctification of the Holy Ghost his Divine Body These Words as containing the Roman Belief were approved in the Nicene Synod Nor did the Writers of the Roman Church condemning their Heresie which pulled down and destroyed Images charge them with any disbelief of the real Presence or Transubstantiation These Iconoclast Heretics indiscreetly naming the Bread the Image of the Body of Christ gave probably occasion to the following Writers to dispute how it was an Image Amongst whom Scotus Erigena towards the end of the Eight or beginning of the Ninth Century went so far that he said 't was only an Image of the Body Scarce had he broach'd this new Doctrin but he was straight censured by the Writers of those Times Hincmarus accused him that he called the Sacrament a remembrance only of the true Body and Blood of Christ Prudentius Bishop of Troy and Ebbo Prelat of Grenoble confuted the same Erigena Nor did this Scotus decline the sinister Opinion of Pope Nicholas in his Letter to Charles the Bald Scotus's great Patron and Friend Yet we never read that Scotus ever reply'd in defence of his Error and so seem'd in some manner to retract what before he had imprudently spoken His Followers were but few and those too taught this Error underhand so fearfully that no body could accuse them of open Heresie or convince them not to be Catholics Thus this Infant Embrio of Error covered in the Shell of darkness was at length hatch'd and brought forth by Berengarius in the twelfth Age. Berengarius was born at Tours in France After he had finished the ordinary courses of Studies he taught Grammar and Philosophy Then he was made Treasurer in St. Martin's Church About the Year 1149 he went for Anger 's where he was kindly entertained and constituted by Bruno the Arch Bishop his Archdeacon Here he began to sow several Errors Viz. That Children were not to be baptized that Marriage might be dissolved that our Saviour could not enter in where his Disciples were The Door 's shut as we learn from Guitmundus Theoduinus and St. Anselm He added a fourth Error which is to our present purpose That the consecrated Bread was only a Figure of Christ's Body Which that he might the better maintain he kept poor Boys to School educating them in all manner of Learning that so by mony and interest he might have many at his command But alas all in vain for this Error no sooner was vented but it was opposed by many Learned Writers Among these were St. Lanfrancus St. Anselm Guitmundus Durandus Algerus Adelmannus Hugo Lingonensis Humbertus Petrus Cluniacensis Euthymius Hugo Victorinus Petrus Lombardus And the same Berengarius more than once abjured his Error which during his life was nine times condemned in nine several Councils The first at Rome under Leo the Ninth The Second at Vercells The Third in the Convent of Brion according to the desires of Henry Duke of Normandy to whom he fled for protection The Fourth at Paris The Fisth at Tours by order from Pope Victor The Sixth at Rome under Nicholas the Second The Seventh at Poictous in France The Eighth at Rome under Gregory the Seventh The Ninth at Bourdeaux under Hugo Bien Bishop and Legat of the See Apostolic in France This we have from the Writers of those times cited in Baronius The last abjuration of this Heresie made by Berengarius was real For after ten years Penance he died peaceably in the Bosom of the Church This we have from William of Malemsbury Mathew Paris Vincentius Bellovacensis and what is most convincing we read in an Old Manuscript in St. Martin's at Tours these Words Obiit Magister Berengarius Grammaticus fidelis et vere Catholicus An. Dom. 1186. Many of those whom he had perverted imitated his pious return to the Church and his Penance Others more unfortunate propogated this Figurative Exposition and Exclusion of Christ's Body in the Sacrament after the best manner Industry could invent and Craft execute Hence you may gather what diligence the Enemy of Mankind used how often he was forced to repeat almost the same Stratagems before the fearful Error durst publickly appear or was able to stand in any corner of Christendom Pray now compare if you please the rise of Transubstantiation with the beginning of the opposite contradiction and acknowledge without prejudice or partiality which of the two ought to be sincerely embraced Whether will you believe Nine several Councils or Berengarius an Apostate who yet afterwards recanted Whether the Holy Fathers who vindicated this Catholic Doctrin St. Austin St. Hilary St. Ambrose St. Cyril St. Justin St. Ignatius Martyr or the Marcionits Menandrians Simonits all Heretics who deny the Substantial Body of Christ Whether lastly you believe St. Paul or the Erring Corinthians St. John or the incredulous Jews our Blessed Saviour or the Contradicting Calvinists I leave you to your own choice whilst I pursue your third Principle CHAP. III. Examen of your Solution given to Mr. Arnauld 's Demonstration MR. Arnauld a learned man in France pretended very rightly that it was impossible
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
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
of the Son of God and that of the Son of Man in one Christ Thirdly The Council declares they receive it as the all-vivificating and proper Flesh of the Word that Word who was made and called Man professing one Person in Christ to whom this Human Nature properly belonged Now if all this were to be expounded of a Figure what wresting would there be of this Article And how could the Council conclude the proper Flesh of Christ was that of the Divine Word one Person and two Natures and speak of neither but of a pure Figure The Sacrament might have been a Figure of the Passion and yet two distinct Persons admitted in Christ SEVENTH MOTIVE The Council of Trent declares that because Jesus Christ our Redeemer truly said that 't was his own Body which under the appearance of Bread he offered and gave to his Disciples the Church of God was alwaies perswaded that this wonderful change was operated by the conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's precious Body and therefore renews the Canon of Transubstantiation And You know that as our Saviour commanded his Apostles to preach the Gospel so did he oblige the People to receive the promulgated Word and be obedient to their Pastors The obligation of this obedience will last to the end of the world and consequently in the mean time will be still due to the true Successors of the Apostles with whom Christ had promised to remain till the consummation of the World. You cannot deny but the Romish Church has true succession from Christ and his Apostles and we are sure you have left this Society of true Successors Obedience therefore to the true Successors of the Apostles who have defined this Catholic verity obliges me in the last instance to believe this is my Body can import no less than the sense of Transubstantiation I think a slight consideration of the foregoing motives easily shews Catholics pretend not as you would have them that if Transubstantiation can be it must be either because there are no Figures in Scripture or because a Sacrament admits of no Figures You seem to be perswaded of this your self turning these imaginarie Reasons against the Roman Catholic Assertion But alass they are no more against than they were for Transubstantiation For our Saviour's words may be literally true and yet many Figures admitted in Scripture There may be given many Spiritual interpretations of the sacred Text and yet this passage the Word was made Flest litterally signifie that the second Person of the Blessed Trinity was substantially Man. There are questionless in the old and new Testament many Figures and neither lookt upon as a meer Figure There may be then many Figures in Holy Writ and this is my Body not at all be concerned in these figurative interpretations Nor is your second reason more efficacious than the former For these words this is my Body literally received are not at all prejudiced by an outward sign or Figure of a Sacrament The very notion of a Sacrament in St. Austin's opinion shews part and hides the remainder What appears in the Sacrament of the Altar is a sign an accidental shape or resemblance and this is the object of Sense What is understood and believed can be no less than what our Blessed Saviour warrants us of his own Body How then is the substance of the Elements not changed because the Eucharist is a Sacrament and a Sacrament is a Sign A Man is an Image of God yet a Substance The Divine Son is a Figure of his Father's Substance and who can wrest from him the same Substance with his Eternal Father 'T is true it was an Arian Error the Son 's an Image therefore not God. Is your Illation stronger the Eucharist is a Sacrament or Sign therefore it is not the Substance This Error ought to correct yours Now this is my Body may be taken I think in the sense of Transubstantiation and the Eucharist remain a Sacramental Sign or resemblance Had you foreseen this Answer I presume you woul have smothered this instance viz. When he gave the Cup he said this Cup is the New Testament in my Blood where first the Cup is put for the Wine and if any thing be changed it must be the Cup. The speedy quitting of the contested Proposition this is my Body is a ready confession that you were unable to discover therein couch'd any Figurative exposition and so hasten to busie your Reader with a Metonymy contain'd in the word Cup put for Wine Had this been so how easily could sense and reason have unfolded what appeared difficult But why do I say difficult It is our common Language to ask for a Cup or Glass when we mean Drink Nor was the Phrase amongst the Jews otherwise This is cleared from the Triple repetition of the same Phrase in S. Paul to the Corinthians Drink this Cup. If this then was the proper speech and our Saviour did not speak improperly who could be so remote from Sense to guess the Cup or Chalice was to be drunk Would you not think that person extravagant who hearing you ask in a place where People were drinking Wine for a Glass should apprehend you would swallow down the Glass and so the Vessel be turn'd into your Substance Which must be true if it be false that Sense and Reason without the support of some father assistance could be deceived in so facile and usual an expression of a Cup or Glass put for Wine If then the Holy Ghost had used in Scripture the Cup for Wine I know not who could have refused such a Figure And because I find no Metonymy no Figure couch'd in this is my Body I exclude all Figurative insinuations I said if the Holy Ghost had put the Cup for Wine Wine you say the Divine Spirit writes Blood and so the Cup is metonymically put for the contained Drink in the Chalice or Blood. For what we read in St. Luke This Cup the New Testament in my Blood is equivalent to this Blood and so the Cup is Blood. If you suspect the supposal harken how St. Matthew Phrases it This is my Blood of the New Testament which is repeated by St. Mark and who dare contradict two Divine Testimonies If the Spirit of God was careful to plain so small a Nicety in so familiar a Phrase is it credible that he would have omitted the most important in the World which he has done if this is my Body be but a Figure of his Body since the Scripture discovers nothing to diminish the reality of Christ's true Body What you add if any thing be chang'd it is the Cup into the Covenant is very strange Till you make this good by Reason or evince it from Scripture give me leave not to credit your Authority And if you think the word Testament in this passage this Cup or Blood is the New Testament excludes real Blood
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