can make God. This is certainly to run headlong into Hell in Heavens Road wheedling the People into Blind Extasies with Hypocritically crying out O Blessed Saviour But all who says O Lord O Lord shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Examine your own Prayer and Reason will find matter enough to discuss and Conscience more to correct What Catholic ever said First That Men should kill one another Secondly That the most barbarous thing in the World is a Mystery of Religion Thirdly That we flatter the Priest who says he can make God These are as true as your Prayer is without Calumny or Hypocrisie They are as true as there were Execrable Murders committed to drive People into this Senseless Doctrin by no Body in no Place But they are not as true as the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was delivered by Christ and his Apostles taught by the Consent of the Fathers Divinely revealed and propagated to Posterity and so free from Stupidity quiet from Cruelty and a Pious Mystery of our Religion Article IV. Of the Danger of Idolatry IF we should be mistaken as you suppose about this Change through the crosness of the Priest which God forbid it should happen not pronouncing the words of Blessing or Consecration we should not at all be guilty of Idolatry For believing only one true God we profess there is infinite Distance between him and all Creatures and therefore we cannot so honour any Creature as we do the true God. Nor is our Intention ever determined by the Will to adore any thing which is not God So that if the Hoast were not through mistake consecrated by the Priest the Peoples Adoration would be terminated in Christ where e're he is because it is directed to God and not to a Creature The Pagans 't is true or Persians cannot be excused from Idolatry in worshiping the Sun because erring from the knowledge of the true God they direct their Adoration to what is not God but a Creature Mr. Thorndyke one of the great Lights of your Church was so convinced in this point that he professes should this Church of England declare that the Change which we call Reformation is grounded upon this Supposition of Idolatry in the Church of Rome I must then acknowledge that we Protestants are the Schismatics CHAP. II. Of the Monstrous Absurdity of this Doctrin TO shew the Absurdity of this Doctrin you are contented to ask these few Questions Question 1. Whether ever any Man have or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation Answer If we had no surer Evidence of Revealed Truth than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation we should have no true Evidence for Christian Religion And thus by your First Question Christianity would immediatly be dispatched out of the World. Quest 2. Supposing the Doctrin had been delivered in Scripture in the same words which we read in the Council of Trent You ask by what stronger Argument could any Man prove to me that such words were in the Bible than I can prove to him that Bread and 〈…〉 Consecration are Bread and Wine still Answer The Sense of the Council of Trent and that of the Scriptures are one and the same If therefore I can but appeal to 〈◊〉 Eyes to prove such words to be in the Bible as you do appeal to your Senses to prove that Bread and Wine remain after Consecration what the Scripture says is evidently true according to the Testimony of Sense and your Testimony from Sense of the substance of Bread remaining is evidently false I have great assurance of this For St. Paul forbids me to believe an Angel if he should come down from Heaven and teach me contrary to what is writ in Scripture As this is the substance of Bread and not my Body is contradictory to this is my Body And what Prerogative enjoy you beyond that of an Angel And if you draw one way with your Evidence of Sense and Scriptural Evidence from Sense draw another way is it not evident that your evidence is good for nothing Quest 3. Whether it be reasonable to imagin that God should make that a part of Christian Religion which shakes the main external Evidence and Confirmation of the whole You mean the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles the Assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of Sense Answer With great Reason and Justice you appeal to the Senses of those who say they saw the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles because their Eyes were the proper Witnesses of Miracles So with the same Reason and Justice I appeal to my Senses to prove that the words which teach the Doctrin of Transubstantiation are in Scripture because Paper Ink Syllables and words are the proper Objects of Seeing feeling and hearing How then does the Catholic Tenet shake the main External Evidence of the Christian Religion when this external proof of Sense evidences from Scripture Transubstantiation Quest Whether our Saviour's Argument were conclusive or not proving to his Disciples after his Resurrection that his Body was risen Luke 24. 29. Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as you see me have And if seeing and handling be an unquestionable Evidence that things are what they appear to our Senses then the Bread in the Sacrament is not chang'd into the Body of Christ Answer Sense in its own Objects is frequently certain and here we may rely on it According to this Principle the Argument which our Saviour used did certainly prove to the Disciples that what they saw and handled was his true Body For affirmation of Flesh and Bones rightly follows from feeling and seeing These Actions belong properly to the experience of Sense Besides we have all this recorded in Scripture And our Saviour made use of all other Arguments imaginable to confirm the Mystery of his Resurrection In some Circumstances the Senses may deceive us and then we ought not to rely on them Thus the Jews designing to precipitate our Saviour from the top of a Mountain Jesus as we read in Scripture passed through the crowd and departed and the whole Multitude trusting to that Information which Sense gave them believ'd he was a Ghost or Apparition In like manner the same true Body of Christ is substantially present in the Sacrament after a Spiritual Existence and therefore it is not the proper Object of Sense and so we cannot here rely on our Senses We must then trust to something else viz. to the Testimony of Scripture which is the Rule of Faith to know surely what Substance or Body lies under the Species or appearance of Bread. Now the Scripture teaches us that the Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ This is my Body and the Bread which I will give is my Flesh
not confess that the Eucharist is that Flesh which suffered for our sins The Flesh which suffered for us and rose again was it a Figure or was it true Flesh If I should affirm that the Language of the Second Century spoke after the same manner and told us that they were taught the Eucharist was not common Bread but was the Flesh of our Saviour made Man and Jesus incarnate would you not reply it was a Roman Invention And yet St. Justin the Martyr leaves this convincing Testimony We do not receive these things as common Bread or common Drink But as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so are we taught that this Food by which chang'd by digestion in our Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Flesh and Blood are nourish'd Eucharistated or transformed by the prayer of this Divine Word is the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnate Jesus If for all this you should reply that the Eucharistic Food is onely figuratively the Flesh and Blood of Christ then might the Reader likewise aver Christ being incarnate had onely figuratively both Flesh and Blood. For 't is more to say the blessed Bread is the Flesh and Blood of Incarnate Jesus because this Speech implies a substantial change than to say Jesus being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood because this Speech can signifie no more than a substantial Union And to say less in either is to diminish and change the Martyr's Sense If I should instance the Third Age was a faithful Imitator of the precedent so dividing between the Divine Mystery and the Grace of the Mystery that the Body of Man received the Body and Blood of Christ and the Soul was replenished with the Grace of Faith or effect of the Sacrament would you not be surprized at the acknowledgment of what was given in Communion And yet Tertullian furnishes us with a sufficient manifestation of this Truth Saying Our Flesh is sed with the Body and Blood of Christ that our Soul may be filled with God. Again These words Our Flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be deluded in an eating by Faith because the Body of Man is incapable of an act of Faith. If I should continue the Fathers of the Fourth Century when the Church was beautified and enriched with an innumerable Offspring of Pious and Learned Children If I should alledge how these worthy Champions of Christian Purity forbid Posterity to judge of the Sacrament by Tast and taught them the Body was given them under the Species of Bread and as Christ changed Water into Wine so did he Wine into his own Blood would you not swear this Language was unknown in those times And yet both the Greek and Latin Church conspire in this Doctrin Hearken to that Grecian Prelate St. Cyril of Jerusalem and acknowledge the plain truth of these words Do not judge the thing by Tast but by Faith. Under the species of Bread is given to thee the Body and under the species of Wine is given to thee the Blood. Christ formerly changed Water into Wine and is he not to be believed changing Wine into his Blood Nor are these words of the Learned Latin Bishop Gaudentius of less force Jesus giving to his Disciples Bread and Wine said this is my Body Let us believe it is what he said Truth is incapable of Error The Creator of all Nature and Lord who produces Bread from the Earth made again of this Bread because he can and promised his proper Body and because he did make Wine of Water of Wine he makes his Blood. I know there are several Expressions and Comparisons in the Fathers which only declare a spiritual change effected in the worthy Receiver But do not the foregoing Authorities prove something more a change not in the Receiver but in the thing received and this can be no less than a substantial one For when Catholics argue that as Christ changed Water into Wine so does he Bread into his Body Protestants readily deny the sequel because this would be to profess Transubstantiation If this reasoning of Catholics include a substantial change of the Bread into Christ's Body as you grant how comes it to pass that the very same words and very same reason in the Father's Writings must have quite another interpretation If the Fathers had design'd to have writ for Transubstantiation they could but have said what they do and you might still explicate them in a spiritual sense or wrested interpretation If I should urge on that I rightly profess the consecrated Bread transfigur'd and transelemented into the Body of Christ would you not exclaim these are as hard and mishapen words as that of Transubstantiation and yet many Fathers of this fourth Age after Christ use the same Expressions Witness this Language of St. Ambrose As often as we receive the Sacraments which by the Mystery of Prayer are transfigurated into Flesh and Blood witness this Speech of St. Gregory Nyssene I properly believe the Bread sanctified by the word of God to be changed into the Body of God the Word And this is effected the nature of what appears being transelemented by vertue of benediction into the Body of the word Christ I close up this Motive with the decision of the Synod in Egypt celebrated before the second Oecumenical Council to both which presided St. Cyril of Alexandria These Fathers composing a Creed inserted these words in the end of their Introduction This is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church in which the East and West agree Then immmediatly follows their Creed divided into many Articles What if their Seventh Article should decree the Flesh received in the Sacrament to be the very Flesh of Christ which made one Person and two Natures in one Son and not two Sons one of God Divine and another of the Blessed Virgin Human as Nestorius Heretically taught you could require nothing more for Transubstantiation And yet these are their words We do not receive in the Sacrament our Saviour's Flesh as common Flesh God forbid Nor again as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man or associated to the Word by unity of Dignity but as the true vivificative and proper Flesh of the Word himself truly the Flesh of him who for our sake was made and called the Son of Man. The Council admitting with Nestorius what was received to be true Flesh defines against the Heretic who pretended our Saviour as he was the Son of the Virgin Mary had not only a Nature but likewise a Human Person and so constituted two Persons in Christ that we do not receive this as common Flesh or the Flesh of an ordinary Person Secondly The Council adds Nor as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man or associated to the Word by the unity of Dignity which excluded that accidental Union by which the Nestorians joyned together two Persons that
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
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