AN ANSWER TO A DISCOURSE AGAINST Transubstantiation Hic est Filius meus dilectus Ipsum audite This is my beloved Son Hear ye Him Matth. 17. 5. Permissu Superiorum LONDON Printed by Henry Hills Printer to the King 's Most Excellent Majesty for His Houshold and Chapel 1687. Introduction IF public Applause and popular Acclamations of your own Party are to be believed your Discourse against Transubstantiation has sufficiently shewed that the Scriptures cannot clearly demonstrate this miraculous Change nor the perpetual belief thereof in the Christian Church illustrate it and that there are all the reasons in the World against it Yet if a serious consideration and weighing of your Arguments in the Scale of Justice be the Deciders of the present Debate we shall find neither Scripture nor belief of the Primitive Church nor any reason in the World against Transubstantiation And therefore in Christian Duty I think my self obliged to endeavor after my poor manner a discovery of your winning Artifices and a removal of your plausible Appearances dividing this following Answer into two Parts In my first I 'll examin whether there be any tolerable ground for Transubstantiation And my second is designed to counterpoise as you think your Invincible Objections PART I. I Sub-divide my First Part into five Sections comprehending the five pretended grounds one or more of which you suppose the Church of Rome builds this Doctrin on First The Authority of Scripture Or Secondly the perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church Or Thirdly the Authority of the Church to make or declare an Article of Faith. Or Fourthly the absolute Necessity of such a Change for the benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or Fifthly to magnify the Power of the Priest SECT I. Whether Scripture authorise Transubstantiation BEfore I begin to discuss whether Scripture authorise Transubstantiation I think it convenient to premise two Reflections upon two considerable Circumstances delivered in your Introduction First Reflection upon the word Transubstantiation In the very first entrance of your Discourse you complain it is a hard word and afterwards increase your complaint with this unparallel'd exaggeration It was almost 300 years before this mishapen Monster of Transubstantiation could be lick'd into that Form in which it is now setled and established in the Church of Rome Bold Assertions ought to be supported with great Proofs And Monstrous Vilifications of the Divine Goodness expiated with more than ordinary Repentance Heaven forbid that our Blessed Saviour should ever prove a mishapen Monster even to those who most oppose revealed Truth expressed in Transubstantiation A hard word and who can endure it a new word and who will admit it St. Hilary answers you in this Reply to the Arian Heretics importuning the primitive Church of Christ with the like expressions Say rather if you speak wisely will you not wage new Wars against new Enemies or take fresh Counsels against new Treasons or drink Counterpoison against venomous Infections Nor was St. Athanasius's Interrogation of less force Are you offended at the newness of the Name or affraid of the verity of the Mystery The sentiment of these two great Ornaments of the Church is the common Practice of whole Sacred Antiquity according to the Golden Sentence of Vincentius Lyrinensis The Church ordinarily appropriates some new term to signifie more pathetically the true Sense of Faith. Thus did the first Oecumenical Council write 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Consubstantial and the Arians could not digest the hardness of the Word Thus did the Ephesian Prelates stile the B. Virgin 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mother of God which was no softer to the Nestorians And thus did the Lateran Bishops subcribe to Transubstantiation and the Berengarians and Modern opposers of the Roman truth expostulate with us for this Word and modestly term it a Mishapen Monster Second Reflection upon the Evidence of Sense Here you bring in Aristotle who long since hath pronounced There ought to be no dispute of the matter of Sense I beg Pardon if I am not at leisure to digress with you towards Paganism Neither can I think you serious when you quote the Philosopher's determination for the Mystery of the Lords Supper who never professed a revealed Religion and died many Hundred years before Christianity was Promulgated and Established Nor do I apprehend the least danger to be overburden'd with the heavy matter of Sense when my way leads to the Sublime matter of Revelation You cannot deny Sense Reason and Faith are three various Perfections so likewise are their Objects distinguished The Stagyrite never pretended Sense should reach farther than to the Accidents and Appearance of things And Reasons employ was the contemplation of Essence Nature and Substance How could Aristotle pronounce the matter of Sense was never to be disputed when 't was always to be pry'd into and regulated by Reason Yet we do not dispute with you the Prerogative of Sense in the Mystery of the Sacrament For we see the outward shape and appearance of Bread and Wine nor is Tast wanting All this is granted Unless then you perplex and embroil the Question Sense reposes without violation quiet and contented in its own Objects Nor ought you to believe that Reason can securely without Error always determin in Natural Sciences according to the received impression from the visible Sign or Object of Sense This Maxim is given to Novices entring the list of Dialecticks and admitted by the Sect of Peripateticks So Reason enlarges the greatness of the Sun and assures us it far exceeds in bigness the Terrestrial Orb tho' Sense inclose it in the small circumference of a Ball. Sense indeed and Reason combining together and following the prescript of Logick are the proper deciders of Philosophical contestations Sense pleads for no more and if the Reason of Aristotle surviv'd it would be abundantly satisfi'd with this voluntary concession If for all this you resolve to seat Reason in the Chair of Judicature even where Revelation intervenes Divine Authority will easily rescue Christian Religion from the information of Sense Reason following the Dictamen of outward existence told Abraham what appeared were Men Revelation corrected the mistake and assured him they were Angels Reason affirmed what descended in the shape of a Dove was that Innocent Creature Revelation reformed the Judgment and intimated it was the Holy Ghost Reason regards the Species of Bread as inherent to the proper Substance Revelation changes that Substance into the Body of Christ Abraham saw the figure and shape of Men and yet the Substance of Man was wanting The Feathers in appearance exhibited a Dove the real Substance was supply'd with the presence of the Holy Ghost Again it was a Maxim of Philosophy what is was from something And this Evidence vanishes at the sight of Revelation which teaches the whole Universe was Created of nothing 'T was a Principle There 's no return from
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
occasion of its first rise could not be assigned Did not a considerable part of Christendom with all their might oppose the Turkish Invasion and if all had been quiet would not Vienna have been surprised and pilledged Was all England ignorant of the Restauration of our Gracious Monarch and were there none to be found to witness his coming in were not the Tares as soon as they sprung up seen and discovered But no body except Heretics ever opposed Transubstantiation No body but Rebels rofe against the right Prerogative of their Prince And what has the Parable of the Tares to do with the Blessed Sacrament The same confidence is sufficient to extend the same Comparison to the rest of our Christian Mysteries and proves just as much that is nothing at all except Christianity be nothing else but Tares SECT III. Of the Infallible Authority of the Present Church for this Doctrin YOU say the Roman Church made and obtruded upon the World this Article merely by vertue of her Authority Seeing not any sufficient reason either from Scripture or Tradition for the belief of it The Roman Catholic Church never taught any of her Children that She had Power from God to make an Article of Faith. But She teaches us that two Conditions are required for the constitution of an Article of Faith. First Revelation from God. Secondly The Declaration of an Oecumenical Council Where these two agree that we are taught is part of our Belief And I shall desire you will only peruse these words of the Council of Trent which intimate the Reason why the Church of God declared for Transubstantiation and I am persuaded you 'l believe She did not define this Doctrin neither warranted with Scripture nor Tradition For the Council says Because Christ our Saviour truly said that was his Body which under the Species of Bread he offered therefore the Church of God was always persuaded and this Holy Council declares again the same that by the consecration of Bread and Wine the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of the Body of our Lord and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of the Blood which Conversion is conveniently and properly called by the Council Transubstantiation SECT IV. Of the Necessity of such a Change for the benefit of the Receiver THE Spiritual Efficacy of the Sacrament depends upon receiving the thing which our Lord instituted and a right preparation and disposition of mind which makes it effectual to those Spiritual Ends for which it was appointed As God might without any Baptismal Water without any visible Elements have washed away the Stains of Original Sin and given Spiritual Regeneration So could he have made the worthy Receivers true Partakers of the Spiritual Comfort and Benefit design'd to us in the Lord's Supper without any substantial change made in the nature of Bread and Wine But as we cannot say the Water in Baptism and Symbols are unprofitable as things are instituted by God and useless for the cleansing of Original Sin so likewise ought we not to pretend that the Flesh of Christ is useless and profiteth nothing to the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament because Christ without this may give us the benefit or fruit of the Sacrament God might have pardon'd the World if his only begotten Son had not undergon so many griefs and anguishes so much pain and that ignominious death of the Cross Yet who dare say this Flesh was not true Flesh or profited nothing which redeemed all the World If it profited on the Cross why does it not profit in the Sacrament And if it profit not without Faith how can it profit those who believe not The very thought of our Saviour's Substantial Presence in the Sacrament strikes much a deeper impression of Devotion in my Soul than if I reflected on bare Symbols or Signs weakly exciting Faith in me And even when a Terrene Prince visits Prisons or in a Solemn Pomp enters the Capital City his Corporal Presence customarily frees many Criminals from Chains Fetters and Imprisonments which the Law would otherwise not have granted nor the King consented too And yet one word of command is sufficient to do greater execution SECT V. Of the Power of the Priest WE acknowledge a Power in the Priest which is not in the People All were not constituted Apostles all were not Doctors But we do not acknowledge a Power in the Priest to make God as you calumniate us we acknowledge a Power in God to change one Substance into another Bread into his Body Till you prove this impossible which is impossible to be done you 'll give us leave to believe God is in the right possession of his Omnipotency and loses nothing of his Power by your Detraction And if you count this Miraculous change no Miracle give it what Title you please we will not dispute the Name if you contradict not the thing And thus I have dispatched the first part of my Answer which was to vindicate the real Grounds and Reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin PART I MY Second Part was designed to answer your Objections which are of so much the less force because I have already shewn this Doctrin sufficiently warranted with Divine Authority and this easily weighs down and overthrows whatever Probabilities Sense can suggest or Reason invent These Probabilities you reduce to these two Heads First The infinite Scandal of this Doctrin to the Christian Religion And Secondly The monstrous and insupportable Absurdity of it CHAP. I. Of the infinite Scandal of this Doctrin to the Christian Religion AND this upon four accounts First by reason of the Stupidity of this Doctrin Secondly The real barbarousness of it Thirdly The Bloody consequences of it Fourthly The danger of Idolatry Article I. Of the Stupidity of this Doctrin TUlly the Roman Orator says When we call the Fruits of the Earth Ceres and Wine Bacchus we use but the common Language but do you think any man so mad as to believe what he eats to be God I am of Cicero's Opinion And all reasonable People look upon Poetical Fancies as Extravagant Reveries But I hope the Law of Christ is neither Poetical nor Fabulous I remember the Poets sing how Minerva the Goddess of Wisdom was born of Jupiter's Understanding Harken says Tertullian a Fable but a true one like to this The Word of God proceeding from the Thought of his Eternal Father This Likeness or Similitude of Poetical invention diminishes not in the least the truth of the Son's Divinity Nor ought the Stupidity of eating God in Tully's Opinion ridicule our Saviour's own Words Take eat this is my Body Averröes the Arabian Philosopher acknowledging in his time this Doctrin to be the Profession of all Christians ought to make not what you say the Church of Rome the Church of England blush objecting that the whole Society of Christians then every where admitted Transubstantiation I have
Privation to the Habit from Death to Life and this perswasion ceases acknowledging our Saviours Resurrection Reasons reluctancy proceeding from Senses information must yield to the Power of Revelation or we must cease to be Christians Thus Julian Apostatised and derided Christians that they were so stupid to blindfold Reason with the bare word of a Crede you must Believe This in St. Gregory Nazianzen is recorded St. Clement in the Second Centurie relates the same of the Greek Philosophers and confutes them by this Definition of Supernatural Faith Faith which the Greeks look upon as vain and unreasonable is a voluntary Anticipation a Pious yielding the Substance of things which are hop'd for and an evidence of what is not seen according to the Divine Apostle Faith is First according to this Ancient Father a voluntary Anticipation of Reason and you wilfully Anticipate Faith by Reason Secondly Faith is a pious Assent to Divine Testimony and you boldly contradict our Saviours own words Thirdly It is the Substance of things hop'd for and you reply there 's nothing to be hoped for of Substance in the Sacrament Lastly Faith is an Evidence of things not seen and you contend Reason evidences the contrary Reason rather with St. Ambrose who declares We believe Fisher-men we do not Believe Philosophers St. Cyril of Alexandria conceived it impossible to believe where Reason intermixes inquiries St. Chrysostom avow'd the very letting of an How can it be is a beginning of incredulity St. Augustin avers that if we first demonstrate and afterwards believe we become both Ignorant and Incredulous And our B. Saviour adds the heavy burden of Condemnation as we read in St. Mark Who will not Believe shall be Condemned This is sufficient to shew that Reason in matters of Religion ought to take her information not from Sense but from the proposal of God and Divine Scriptures Now I examin Whether Scripture Authorise Transubstantiation You say we pretend for this Doctrin the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour this is my Body So likewise do we pretend for the same Doctrin the Authority of Scripture from the 6 Chapter of St. John which you passing over in silence as inconsiderable I shall endeavor to manifest as of great importance Let us not mix confusedly the thing which our Saviour promises to give and the manner of receiving the Gift A worthy receiving the Gift is Spiritually by Faith. This is not contested The Question is What is the thing promised to be given whether the true Body of Christ or not Our Saviour gives two Promises both of the same thing his own Substance both contained in the 51 verse of St. John the Bread that I will give is my Flesh behold the Promise of himself in the Sacrament And which I will give for the life of the World intimates the Promise of himself to the Cross The Promises are distinguished the Substance is the same because the same Spirit of Truth which delivers two Promises assures one Substance What is then this Bread which Christ promised to give in the Sacrament Christ answers it is my Flesh and that Flesh which he will give for the life of the World. Was this a piece of Bread or the true substantial Body of Christ This is peculiarly seconded from our Saviours appeasing the murmur of the Capharnait's and raising their Incredulity to the Mystery of his Flesh by presaging the resuscitation of his own dead Body What if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before If I should now return your Sense of the Sacrament for a reply to our B. Saviour and say we understand the Promise given of your Flesh to be Eaten in Figure only not in Substance would not the Reader straight subsume Then only the Figure of his Body ascended into Heaven and so void our B. Saviours Argument and destroy the Miraculous Ascension Another discontent succeeding among the Jews caused our Saviour to instance once more the Power of his Divinity It is the Spirit that quickeneth the Flesh profiteth nothing This Spirit they were promised to receive in the Sacrament and this Spirit is truly Christ God and Man. The Flesh profiteth nothing if we believe St. Austin as Science according to St. Paul puffeth up Science all alone barren of Charity for so properly Science puffeth up Add Charity to Science with the Divine Apostle and then Science Flourishes and is Fruitful The Body of Christ as a mortal and fading Creature profiteth nothing Joyn God to Man and the Flesh of Christ profiteth exceedingly Thus it profited on the Cross and profiteth in the Sacrament St. Cyril of Alexandria giving the same literal Exposition says when Christ called himself Spirit he did not by this deny that he was Flesh and so concludes that this Spirit was Christ himself If this Spirit then be Christ who Promised to give in the Sacrament what he Promised to give for the life of the World on the Cross who will question that he did not perform what he promised Or would promise what he could not effect 'T is dangerous to limit the Power of the Deity 't is impious to question the Promise of God. And yet alas some Men are so enamoured with what they can feel to have some Substance in it that Idolizing with Sense they are not sensible how Christ promised to give himself in the Sacrament they question the very Gift it self and endeavor to make good these two things 1st That there 's no necessity of understanding these words of our Saviour This is my Body in the sense of Transubstantiation 2ly That there is a great deal of Reason to understand them otherwise These two general Arguments deserve to be the Subject of two Chapters CHAP. I. Of the necessity of understanding our Saviours Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation IF there be any such necessity you pretend it must be either 1st Because there are no Figurative expressions in Scripture or else because a Sacrament admits of no Figure 2ly You are willing to stand to the plain concession of a great Number of the most Learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this controversie These two main Proofs shall be considered in the following Articles Article 1. Examen of your First Proof I Know not upon what account you say that if our Saviours words can be taken in the Sense of the Roman Catholic Assertion this must be either because there are no Figures in Scripture or because a Sacrament admits of no Figure Had any of our Authors made use of such Reasons or inclined the least this way you would not have omitted such Authority But if you Write what you have not Read for the pretended ground of Transubstantiation I 'm sure you have not Writ what you have Read for the real understanding thereof I shall remind you of some few Motives which induce Roman Catholics to believe our
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