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
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
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
Saviours words can import no less than the verity of Transubstantiation FIRST MOTIVE The Written Law shadowed future Truth and this Truth was Christ So we read Moses sprinkled with Blood the Book and People saying This is the Blood of the Testament which God hath enjoyned unto you The Blood of the Ancient Covenant was the Figure of the Blood of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament This appears from the words of our Saviour in the Institution This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many This Miraculous concord of the Old and New Covenant This repetition of the very same Phrase is an Evidence beyond denyal that the former was a Symbol of the latter And since you cannot understand the latter of Christs Blood spilt on the Cross Because you pretend St. Luke says his Blood was then shed which is shed for many which preceded the Crucifiction It follows necessarily to be understood of the true Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Because a Figure is not without the Reality nor a Shadow without a true Body SECOND MOTIVE As it is true that Jesus took Bread so are we taught that he blessed it And what he brake and what he gave to his Disciples was without doubt what he had blessed or consecrated The Question is what this was None of the Evangelists say that he gave Bread they say Jesus took Bread and Jesus assures what was blessed broken and given was his Body saying This is my Body If it was then Bread as the Evangelists note Jesus took Bread and after the Divine Benediction or Consecration became his Body as Jesus affirms this is my Body Then without extorting or racking of Scripture without adding figurative Glosses and wicked is the Man who superads to Scripture the facile sense of Scripture readily leads to the plain Article of Transubstantiation THIRD MOTIVE The Circumstances of our Saviour urge for the Literal Acceptation of This is my Body For Jesus spoke to his Apostles to his dearest Friends preparing to bid his last Adieu and then if ever Sincerity discloses it self without difficulty and after a facile and intelligible Method He 's Wisdom it self and knew how to Phrase his Thought He 's Omnipotent and so can surmount what Human Frailty might conceive as impossible He 's Goodness it self and cannot deceive us And therefore said what it was and what he said was true FOURTH MOTIVE Is the conformity of Scriptures For if Christ had ever design'd to signifie that the Eucharistical Bread was only the Figure of his Body it would surprize us what inclin'd him to make use of this Speech this is my Body and after such a choice to leave it barely without explanation when he so carefully taught his Disciples the true meaning of many easier Parables 'T would astonish us finding the three Evangelists with St. Paul who testifies he received the same Doctrin from revelation not constrain'd nor combining to joyn in expression yet to repeat all the same words without the Least alteration And we read in Latin Greek Syriac Arabic all Versions and Languages nothing but the same expression and equal confirmation FIFTH MOTIVE The very same Interpretation of other Scriptural Passages wherein are grounded the chief Articles of Christian Belief enforces the sequel of Transubstantiation For I believe adhering to Scripture as the Rule of Faith that this Passage the word was made Flesh imports a Substantial Union I believe the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father included in these words I and my Father are one I believe one Divine Essence of three distinct Persons revealed in These three are one Upon these Testimonies of Holy Writ Substantially understood I quietly repose my belief of the Incarnation of our Saviour the Son's Divinity and of the sole and undivided nature of the Blessed Trinity This Method is further secur'd by the consent of all those who are and pretend to be true Members of Christ's Religion Now if I follow this Determination so authorized and so certain if I follow this motive of my own Conviction in other like Articles extending the same uncontrol'd Interpretation to this is my Body I must necessarily grant this Inference this is my Substantial Body Thus my Faith seeks to be one as Scripture is one and God one Truth As this literal Reflection is sincere and pious the figurative Explanation of our Saviour's Words wants no Fallacy nor Impiety For if I may presume to give this sense to our Saviour's Words this is not my Substantial Body this Presumption ought to be strongly grounded as allowable just and in Equity to be follow'd And if so then I may lawfully give the same exposition to the three alledg'd Articles For the Scripture urges not more out of this Passage The word was made Flesh the substantial connexion of the Second Person with Human Nature or out of these words I and my Father are one the identity of the Son with the Father or out of these Three are one the unity of Nature in three Divine Persons than out of this is my Body the Substantial Body of Christ If therefore I might lawfully understand our Saviour's words in an empty figurative exposition saying this is not my Substantial Body I might rightly deduce following the same interpretation then the word was not substantially made Flesh and so deny the Mystery of the Incarnation I and my Father are not substantially one and so prosess Arianism These three are not substantially one and so dividing the Divine Nature constitute many Gods. Can such a figurative Explanation be thought a sincere part of the True Religion which undermines and utterly destroys the whole Fabrick of Christianity And ought not my own Motive in the most considerable Mysteries of Christianity contained in Scripture be to me the same in the determination of the true Sense of This is my Body SIXTH MOTIVE The true sense of our Saviour's words may be gathered from the Doctrin which the Learned and Ancient Fathers maintain'd against incroaching Heresie What if I should now advance that the Successors of the Apostles upbraided Heretics for denying the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ that Flesh which suffered for us upon the Cross would you not look upon it as an invincible undertaking and yet the glorious Martyr St. Ignatius elected Bishop of Antiochia thirty eight years after our Saviour's Passion plainly delivers They certain Heretics whose Names he thought convenient not to mention do not receive Eucharists or Sacrifices because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which Flesh suffered for our sins and which the Father raised again by his benignity Nor is it enough to say these Heretics could not admit the Eucharist to be a Figure because they deny'd that Christ had true Flesh This perchance is true But it is not here the sense of the Martyr who says expresly that they reject Eucharists because they do
me disputing for Transubstantiation to use in my own defence these words of yours which somewhat favour my undertaking I readily acknowledge the Fathers do and that with great reason very much magnify and frequently speak of a great Sacramental Change made by the Divine Benediction If from hence I should vigorously assert you granted the Fathers were for the Substantial Change because since you admit a wonderful Change made by the Divine Benediction and that the Species remain unaltered the Change must be acknowledged in the Substance of Bread and Wine would you not condemn this weakness and appeal to the other parts of your Treatise to manifest this Impossibility And yet all these Schoolmen actually write in those very Places you mention against the Sectarists or Roman Opposers And almost every one of them produce from Scripture and Fathers more Reasons for than you have done Objections against Transubstantiation I appeal to your own Judgment conscious of this Truth And you know that if you do follow their Writings and imitate the Religion they professed and died in you must declare yoâ—â—self a Member of the Roman Catholic Church CHAP. II. Whether there be any reason to understand our Saviour's words contrary to the sense of Transubstantiation YOU are sure there are a great many Reasons and are not scant of them These may be reduced to five Heads Parables Similitudes the Context of St. Matthew St. Paul to the Corinthians and the Silence of the Apostles at the Institution I follow this order and examin in so many Articles these considerable Reasons against Transubstantiation Article I. Whether Parables exclude the sense of Transubstantiation 'T IS a Maxim among Divines No Efficacious Argument can be drawn from Parables This Calvin acknowledges And St. Austin goes farther admonishing the Donatists n'er to endeavour an establishment of Dogm's from Scriptural Passages which are obscure or ambiguous or figurative which if true the sense of Transubstantiation will not in the least be prejudic'd by your Objections from Parables You first object this Parable of Christ I am the Door I answer the 7th verse explicates I am the Door of the Sheep And he 6th verse This Parable spake Jesus unto them What more pressing a figurative understanding of this passage I am the door But when we read This is my Body we cannot over-see which shall be given for you which maintains the Reality You instance Christ said I am the true Vine I answer the Cyriac interprets I am the Vine of truth Descend to the 5th Verse and Christ says I am the Vine as you are the Branches both a full Attestation of a Parable But where Jesus tells me the Bread which I will give is my Flesh and that Flesh which I will give for the life of the World what more conclusive for the Catholic Interpretation You urge St. Paul says Ye are the Body of Christ I answer the Apostle declares Verse 13. we are spiritually For by one Spirit we are baptized into one Body But where Christ said my Flesh is meat indeed I find added many repetitions which increase a confirmation of the true Substance You finish They drank of the Rock which followed them and that Rock was Christ I answer you are afraid to be just excluding the word Spiritual For we read v. 3. Our Fore-fathers all eat the same spiritual Meat v. 4. and did drink all the same spiritual Drink for they drank of that spiritual Rock and that Rock was Christ What if for a threefold word Spiritual in the precedent I find a triple evidence of the true substance of Christ in the Sacrament which necessarily requires the strictly literal and divine sense of our Blessed Saviour's words St. Luke confirms which is shed for you St. Mark shed for many St. Matthew for the remission of sins Article II. Whether Similitudes exclude the sense of Transubstantiation IF it be well known as you write that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie It is not less evident that the four Similitudes you heap together are not prejudicial to the Catholic Exposition of our Saviour's words These Similitudes shall be delivered in single Paragraphs Paragraph I. Similitude of Pharao 's Dream YOU object Joseph expounding Pharao's Dream to him says The seven good Kine are seven Years I answer We consider some things as Signs and others as Substances The Sign is reasonably called the Thing and yet it is not what it represents so the Portrait of a King is said to be the King that is only represents his Majesty But if we consider a thing as a Substance we cannot in common Language affirm it to be what it is not So Prudence will not give us leave to say a Pen is Paper because a Pen is not reckon'd among representative Signs Josepth reasonably affirm'd the seven Kine are seven Years and so Pharao understood him that they were seven in Representation because they both knew the discourse was of Signs as the Scripture testifies ver 13. And Pharaoh said unto Joseph in my Dream behold I stood upon the bank of the River and behold there came up out of the River seven Kine Our Saviour's Expression this is my Body is as far distant from this Example as the real institution of the Sacrament from the Narrative of a Dream and therefore ought not to be understood as the like Expression But what connexion between Pharao's Dream and the change of Bread in the Sacrament As much as betwixt the same Dream and our Saviour's being Substantially Man. If I should then argue thus as you do Joseph called the seven Kine seven Years which Language is usual among the Hebrews that is signified seven Years and so would any man of sense understand the like expression Therefore when St. John says the Word was made Flesh that is was a Figure os a Man or Phantasm is such a Deduction that no Language but Hebrew can be able to make it out Paragraph II. Of one who never heard of Transubstantiation THIS Similitude is very pleasant as if we should go to Pagans to know what is our own Religion However you believe that he that never heard of Transubstantiation would never imagine any such thing to be meant by our Saviour's words And I believe a great Number of these who saw our Saviour himself deny'd he was God. You believe the Bread only signifies Christ's Body because you will bilieve so I distinguish what Christ distinguished and because he said this is my Body I believe it was his Body and because he commanded us to do this hereafter for a memorial of his Death and Passion we obey him Is not this to follow Scripture You are sure it would never have entred into any Man's mind to have thought that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hands and give away himself from himself with his own hand And I am sure what
cannot enter into Man's thought the Divine power and Omnipotency can and has operated It entred into St. Austin's mind explicating this Scriptural Passage as he thought in the Septuagint he was carried in his hands Thus to propose your Objection How could this be understood of Man for who is carried in his own hands a Man may be supported in others hands none is the burthen of his own hands The Saint Answers We find not the literal sense fulfilled in David in Christ we acknowledge it for Christ was carried in his hands when recommending his own very Body he said this is my Body for he carried that Body in his hands It entred into the thought of our Blessed Redeemer to make use of the like Argument before he gave us the Promise of giving himself entirely in the Sacrament For did he not in that miraculous Multiplication of five Loaves in the sixth Chapter of St. John feeding five thousand Persons give the five Loaves in some manner from the Loaves themselves The Fragments says St. Hilarie succeeded to Fragments and always broken always deceived the Breaker's hand For the Quantity of five Loaves was given and the like Quantity still remained Which Rabanus thus elegantly expressed they were multiplied by being diminished This Argument of our Blessed Saviour if it did not convince the Obstinate Jews it ought to prevail with Christians or at least silence them from saying how can he give himself from himself Paragraph III. Similitude of the Passover YOU compare with our Saviour's words the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time as St. Justin Martyr tells us This Passover is our Saviour and our Refuge Not that say you they believed the Pascal Lamb to be substantially changed into God who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt or into the Messias whom they expected Strange method and dangerous way of allegation tending to the depression of Christianity Our blessed Saviour and the Divine Apostles verify the sincere and literal truth of the new Testament as figurated and symbolized in the Law Prophets and Psalms and you scrupling this Order Judaize with the Hebrews and will have the Law of Grace figurative because the written Law is full of Similitudes and Representations And stranger remark of yours that the Jews did not believe the Paschal Lamb changed into God or the Messias How could they imagine the Lamb changed into God when they knew God could not receive the least alteration I am the Lord and not chang'd or into the Messias when change of one thing into another supposes both their existences and the Messias was not yet born The Israelites only then could believe the Passover a bare Representation to put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt But if St. Justin say The Passover is our Saviour would you desire a more plain exposition than the very following words that is our Refuge And if this Speech of St. Justin were in it self somewhat obscure This Passover is our Saviour The same Ceremonie delivered in Exodus by Moses varying the Phrase of the Passover is a sure Rule for understanding any such like Expression upon this account For there we read it is the Lord 's Passover The Septuagint translate It is the Passover to the Lord. Nor was this Expression unknown to the Hebrews The Passover to the Lord. Paragraph IV. Similitude of a Deed. YOU tell us that a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal is the conveyance of a real Estate and truly and really to all effects and purposes of Law as if the very material House and Lands themselves could be and were actually delivered into your hands If our Cause were pleaded at the Bar the Law it seems you think would make us the losers But if Scriptures be the Sentence I know not why we should refuse to acknowledge what God is pleased to bestow on us He tells us what he gives is his own Body why will you not believe him And to come close to your Objection Do you not by the passing of the Deed really and truly receive the Possession of the Substantial House Lands and Revenues in Specie You would little value the Writing if you did not So likewise the Sacrament conveys to the Receivers the Possession of the Substantial Body and Blood of our Saviour Article III. Upon the Context of St. Matthew YOU pretend that it was true Wine which our Saviour drank of and communicated I Answer not after Consecration You urge our Saviour said I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the Vine this was true Wine I Answer that although we cannot collect from St. Matthew clearly whether these last words of our Saviour belonged to the Consecrated or not Consecrated Wine yet that clearness which St. Matthew's shortness feems to want St. Luke abundantly supplies describing the order of the Passover and delivering the Institution of the Sacrament So where we read in St. Matthew I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine St. Luke interprets and his Interpretation is true the fruit of the Vine before Consecration at the Supper of the Passover With desire says our Saviour I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer For I say unto you I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And he took the Cup and gave thanks and said take this and divide among your selves for I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine untill the Kingdom of God shall come Is not this a plain repetition of St. Matthew's words And here ended the Passover or Paschal Supper The Institution of the Sacrament immediately followed while they sate at Table and therefore St. Luke continues And he took Bread likewise also the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you Here is the Eucharistic Cup which had nothing to do with the fruit of the Vine that was used before Consecration at the Paschal Supper Article IV. The Sense of St. Paul to the Corinthians THUS St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament The Cup of Blessing which we bless is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ These words the Bread which we break signifie the Sacrament For instead of them we read in the Acts of the Apostles according to the Syriac Version the Eucharist Now for the meaning of the word Communion Some will have it to be taken for Distribution Thus the word Communion is equivalent to doth Communicate and makes this Sense The distribution of the Sacrament doth it not communicate to us the true Body of Christ Thus if I stould say that the distribution of Bread in usual eating is the Communion of Bread would not any Man of
in Testimonies they give one of another and to despise God in those he speaks of himself St. Chrysostom adds We speak of God and you ask how this can be do you not tremble at the excess of your Temerity Our Blessed Saviour himself reprehended his Disciples following what Sense suggested at the proposal of the Sacrament in these words doth this offend you Finally The pious Christian guides his unruly Sense in the journey towards Heaven by the steady Reyns of true Faith. Thus the Apostles overcoming their own stubborness became supple and obedient to God's Promise and Power infinitely active beyond Human Imagination and they all joyned in St. Peter's confession And we believe and are sure thou art Christ the Son of the living God. Thus Divine Faith another time prevailed with St. Peter when Sense Reason and the fury of the Sea contradicted to press the Waves with his Feet and hardned the watry Element into a solid Passage The way to Heaven is still by Faith. From all which it must needs be very evident to any Man who will piously search into Truth how little reason there is to understand our Saviour's Words otherwise than in the sense of Transubstantiation SECT II. Of the perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church I Have already manifested how the Roman Catholic Church rightly pretends as an evidence that the Fathers of the Primitive Ages interpreted our Saviour's Words in the sense of Transubstantiation But what Authors have been so fortunate in their Writings that the contrived endeavours of others have not cull'd out some places not so dark in themselves as they are shaded with smothered Representations These your Industry with no small increase has compacted together After this great Task you are pleased to shew when the Doctrin of Transubstantiation first came in And finally you undertake to give a Solution to the pretended Demonstration of Mr. Arnauld a learned man in France These three Subjects shall be the Mattter of so many Chapters CHAP. I. Whether any of the Fathers are against Transubstantiation REflection is the cause of Knowledge Division leads to Reflection I 'll therefore divide your selected Testimonies that they may be the consideration of so many distinct Articles Article I. Upon St. Justin Martyr YOU begin unfortunately with St. Justin whom you make expresly to say that our blood and flesh are nourished by the conversion of that Food which we receive in the Sacrament I find no such thing in the holy Martyr 'T is true I read these words By which Food chang'd in our Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Blood and Flesh are nourished What then Bread and Wine taken out of the Sacrament nourish according to this Passage Flesh and Blood which all the World will allow of And I shall believe St. Justin says no more till you can prove it from the Saint's own Testimonie But why do I say Testimonie when the Passage you cite is nothing but a bare Parenthesis I could heap up a great many such weaknesses collected out of your Discourse if the World were not already too much troubled with such trivial Reflections I 'll take liberty to add one more considerable viz. If natural digestion can change Bread and Wine into the proper Substance of our Bodies how easy will it be to Nature's Author to change one thing into another Bread into the Body of Christ Nor can any moderate Man imagin any thing less when the Devil himself tempted Christ to change one Substance into another Stones into Bread as a Strategem to find out whether he was God. Look likewise into the Book of Genesis and you 'll find that the sole Word of God gave in the beginning of Creation a Being to all Nature and how much more difficult is it to make all things of nothing than to change one thing into another Does not this evidence the possibility of Transubstantiation I thank you for this Objection Article II. Upon St. Irenaeus NOR are you more fortunate in St. Irenaeus who speaking of the Sacrament says The Bread which is from the Earth receiving the Divine Invocation is now no longer common Bread but the Eucharist consisting of two things the one earthly the other heavenly For what is earthly may not unfitly be called the species of Bread and what is heavenly Christ himself Or what if I should attribute this earthly thing to Christ's Humanity and the heavenly thing to Christ's Divinity the Sacrament would be rightly said consisting of two things the one earthly the other heavenly I am sure the Proper Substance of Bread is nothing but Common Bread And yet St. Irenaeus affirms this ceases after Consecration receiving the Divine Invocation 't is no longer Common Bread it is not what it was before You instance and elsewhere he hath this Passage when therefore the Cup that is mixt and the Bread that is broken receives the Word of God it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ of which the substance of our Flesh is increased and subsists St. Irenaeus discourses not here of a natural but of some spiritual increase of Flesh and Blood. For he says our Flest is increased with the Bread as it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ in which sense precisely 't is only supernatural Food Bread as it is supernatural Food or the true Body of Christ in the Sacrament increases the Soul with Grace and Flesh and Blood with a Legitimacy of Immortality These two great Benefits are neatly delivered as the proper effects of Christ's substantial presence in the Sacrament in these words of the Nyssene Doctor As the dire consequence of Poyson is by Counterpoyson prevented so the wholsome remedy which operates our Salvation entring the Bowels of Man thence every-where diffuses its force and vivification What is this wholsome remedy That Body which Jesus exhibited stronger than Death and which was the beginning of Life What can more evince Christ's substantial Presence to be the productive Cause of Sacramental Grace than to testifie this Adorable Body which died for us is in ours as a wholsome remedy there communicating Virtue and dispensing heavenly Treasures So is the same true Body of Christ present in the Sacrament the cause effective of our future Incorruption in Glory and increases in this sense the substance of Flesh and Blood with a beginning of Immortality as appears from the following Lines of the same Father Jesus according to the dispensation of Grace enters by Flesh into those who believe mixing himself with the Body of the Faithful that Man may become Partaker of Incorruption by the union with this Immortal Body This second benefit in St. Irenaeus's mind increases the Substance of Flesh and Blood giving a beginning of resurrection to the Body Or to use this Saint's Example As a grain of Wheat dissolved in earth rises by the power of God with much increase so Flesh and 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
scandalized that I told you ye shall eat my Flesh and drink my Blood ye shall not eat it as ye imagine in the shape you see it bruzing cutting digesting my Flesh I Speak of a Sacrament when I commend the eating of my Body 'T is this Sacrament you shall tast touch and see in outward appearance The Spiritual intelligence by Faith will discovering there my Body remaining invisibly vivify you What more conformable to the Doctrine of Transubstantiation This I shall endeavour to manifest in examining the sense of these two Propositions which contain the force of your Argument 1. Ye must understand spiritually what I have said 2. Ye are not to eat the Body which ye see The Word Spiritually excluding the Carnal sense of the Capharnaits establishes a miraculous or a supernatural understanding So when St. Paul says Isaac was born according to the Spirit He did not deny by this that Isaac was born of the Flesh but declared that the Power of God was required to fecundate the barrenness of his Mother In like manner when St. Austin names this Word Spiritually or Word of Spirit he does not deny that the Bread is Flesh but intimates that the power of God is required to quicken Bread into the Body of Christ And thus the first Proposition Ye must understand what I have said spiritually does not at all diminish the reality of Christ's Substance in the Sacrament The Second Proposition Ye are not to eat this Body which ye see properly denotes the Quality or divers existence of Christ's Body Thus St. Ambrose said that the change of Life is sufficient to verify this Speech I am not I I justified am not I a sinner and yet I am the same man in substance Thus St. Lanfrancus answered Berengarius alledging the same Passage which you object out of St. Austin 'T is not the same if we consider the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacrament 't is the same if we regard the Substance Thus the very same Passage is cited in Gratian with this addition Ye are not to eat this Body which ye see I have recommended a certain Sacrament to you which being Spiritually understood will give you Life ye are to eat him and not to eat him ye are to eat him visibly under the species of Bread ye are not to eat him visibly in the shape of Flesh And lest we should doubt of the reality of his Flesh in the Sacrament St. Austin has left us this invincible Argument in the same Place of your Objection He will says this Father give us that Flesh which he received from Mary in which he walked on Earth and which is first to be adored before we receive it Language which the Church of England will censure for Heresie Paragraph IV. YOU instance this Testimony According to that Flesh which was born of the Virgin Mary ye shall not have me He is ascended up into Heaven and is not here The forementioned Solution satisfies this Objection for we are not to have him in his Natural Existence we are to receive him in a Sacramental Existence Thus the variation of state and change of life caused the great Apostle to say there were two Bodys in man The Animal Body and the Spiritual Body The Animal Body is a poor Passenger upon Earth strugling with Passions and restless Agitations The Spiritual Body is the glorified Corps when Soul and Body meet in Eternity It is sown a Natural Body says St. Paul it shall rise a Spiritual Body Which St. Austin thus expresses It is sown a Corruptible Body it rises an Incorruptible Body The divers existence of Christ's Flesh in Heaven and on the Cross was sufficient to St. Jerom to call it a Divine Body and a Terrene Body These two Bodies are but one in Substance the same in Heaven the same on the Cross the same which the Virgin brought forth and the same in the Sacrament Who eats says St. Austin of this Flesh let him first adore it Adoration testifies what it is Paragraph V. YOU alledge this Similitude from St. Austin As the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is in some manner or sense Christs Body and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Body of Christ so the Sacrament of Faith meaning Baptism is Faith which the gloss of the Canon Law thus expounds It 's called the Body of Christ that is it signifies the Body of Christ Boniface inquiring how Infants when they are baptized are said to believe and renounce the Devil was thus instructed by St. Austin A Sacrament or holy sign is honoured for the most part with the names of the things themselves by reason of which Similitude the Sacrament of Faith Baptism may be called Faith which Infants receiving are said to believe This Answer exacting a confirmation obliged the holy Prelate pitching upon the Similitude of the Sacrament to cast his Eyes precisely on the sole outward appearance of the Symbols which in some manner or sense are Christ's Body and Blood. Not according to the truth of the thing as the Gloss notes or as St. Anselme exxpresses the visible appearance of Bread is not the Body of the Lord except as the Canon Law expounds it improperly and after some manner as it signifies and contains the Body of Christ What is signified or contained is the Mysterie which is not prejudiced by the foregoing Speech For a Mysterie properly speaking is some invisible thing Such is that of St. Paul If I know all Mysteries or hidden things And the Roman Orator expressed himself after the same manner when he said Keep this secret as a Mystery The visible appearance then of Bread though not the true Body of Christ may be called improperly Christ's Body and yet the thing signified or contained under this appearance be the true Body of Christ Or as Faith infused by baptismal regeneration to use St. Austin's comparison is true Faith so the thing received in the Sacrament is the true Body of Christ Paragraph VI. YOU add this remarkable Passage of St. Austin cited by Gratian As we receive the similitude of his Death in Baptism so we may also receive the likeness of his Flesh and Blood and so neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament nor Pagans have occasion to make us ridiculous for drinking of the Blood of one that was slain St. Austin here delivers the strict Practice of the Church in his days hiding from the Pagans the Mystery of the Sacrament and adds this Reason in the same place If the Disciples of our Lord could not patiently receive what our Lord said how will these Incredulous endure us teaching the same Doctrine But of this more hereafter Nor does this Learned Father more exclude the reality of Flesh calling it the likness of Flesh Than St. Paul saying Christ appeared whilst he lived and conversed with
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
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
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
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
If it be the Flesh of Christ as we learn from Scripture then the Substance of Bread remains not for the remaining Substance at the same time cannot be the Substance of Bread and the Substance of the Body of Christ Moreover our Saviour left many other Testimonies in confirmation of this Verity Our Belief is grounded on our Saviour's Words and what more secure than to build on this Immovable Rock of Truth Now what shall I say but that your whole Discourse has been levell'd at our Saviour Jesus Christ and his Testimonies against which the Gates of Hell shall never prevail And I finish with these words of St. Austin When the Opinion of Error has prepossessed Man's Mind whatever Scripture shall say in opposition to his Senses he supposes a Figurative Interpretation Oh that this Figurative receiving Christ in the Sacrament presage not a Figurative embracing of the same in the next World and so you clipping the Shadow for the true Body lose for ever Eternal Happiness Ecclesiae Judicio Subjecta sunto FINIS Page 25. St. Hil. cont const Aug. Die prius si rectè disputas nolo adversus nova venena novas medicamentorum comparationes St. Athan. d. cum Ario coram Probo Nominis ne offenderis novitate anetiam ret ipsius veritate quae hoc est sortita vocabulum Vincent Lyr. in Commonit Ecclesia plerunque propter intelligentiae lucem non novum fidei sensum novae appellationis proprietate signat Nic. 1. in Sym. Con. Ephes. anat 1. Conc. Later decret 1211. an * Aristotle Gen. 8. v. 2. Luke 3. 22. Ex nihilo nil fit St. Greg. Orat. 3. St. Clem. Alex. 2. Stom 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Ambr. Super illud Psal Omnia opera ejus in fide Non creditur Philosophis creditur Piscatoribus St. Cyr. apud St. Maxim. Tò 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Chrys. in Joan. 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Aug. tract 27. in Joan. Nec cognoscare nec credere valemus Mark c. 16. John 6. from the Greek vers 62. vers 63. St. Aug. tract 27. in Joan. Accedat Spiritus ad carnem quomodo accedit Charitas ad Scientiam prodest plurimum nam si caro nihil prodesset verbum caro non fieret St. Paul 1. Cor. 8. Scientia inflat St. Cyr. 6. in Joan. lib. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Exod. 24. Heb. 9. v. 20. Luke 22. St. Paul 1 Cor. 11. Joan. in Evang. c. 1. Joan. 10. v. 30. Ep. 1. Joan. cap. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or as others read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrnaeos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Just Apol. 2. in the end Tertull. de Resurr Carnis c. 8. Caro Corpore Sanguine Christi vescitur ut Anima de Deo saginetur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Cyr. Hier. Catech. 4. Mystag Gauden Epis Bress Tract 2. in Exod. De Pane rursus quia potest promisit efficit proprium Corpus quia de Aqua Vinum fecit de Vino Sanguinem facit Lib. 4. de Fide c. 5. In carnem transfigurantur Sanguinem St. Greg. Nyss Tom. 3. Orat. Cat. c. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syn. Aegypt Prov. Alex. Profess Fid. Tom. 3. Conc. General 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sess 13. c. 4. Ideo persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit St. Aug. Apud St. Fulgen de divers Dicuntur Sacramenta quia aliud videtur aliud intelligitur St. Paul Heb. 1. v. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Cor. 11. St. Luke 22. Matth. 26. Mark 14. Ad Heb. c. 9. v. 18. St. Aug. Civit. Dei l. 17. c. 10. St. Cyp. l. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caeci St. Greg. Or. 3. advers Julian 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Indubitanter tenendum est à bonis sumi non modo Sacramentaliter sed Spiritualiter Amalts verò tantùm Sacramentaliter id est sub Sacramento scilicet sub visibili specie Christi carnem de Virgine sumptam Sanguinem pro nobis fusum sumi sed non mysticam quae tantùm bonorum est Scor. l. 4. d. 9. q. 1. B. St. Greg. Mag. apud Scot. Est quidem indignè sumentibus vera Christi caro verus Sanguis sed essentiâ non salubri efficaciâ Convertitur in Corpus Christ N. 15. Non estaliquis articulus arctandus ad intellectum difficilem nisi ille intellectus sit verus sed si verus est probatur evidenter esse verum oportet secundùm illum intellectum tenere Articulum Sic autem supponitur de intellectu hujus Articuli Ab eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae à quo conditae sunt Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere illud verum vel non verum sed Dei instituentis sed illum à Deo traditum Ecclesia explicavit directa in hoc ut creditur Spiritu veritatis l. 4. d. 11. q. 3. n. 15. Bellarminus l. 3. c. 23. Tertio addit scil Scotus quia Ecclesia Catholica in generali concilio Scripturam declaravit ex Scriptura sic declarata manifeste probari Transubstantiationem Etiamsi Scriptura quam nos supra adduximus videtur nobis tam clara ut possit urgere hominem non protervum tamen an it a sit meritò dubitari potest cum homines acutissimi qualis Scotus contrarium sentiant Lib. 3. c. 23. de Euch. L. 3. c. 19. Haec verba necessariò inferunt aut veram mutationem panis ut volunt Catholici aut mutationem Metaphoricam ut volunt Calvinistae L. 1. c. 9. In universim demonstrabimus non esse probabile Dominum figura te loqui voluisse L. 3. c. 19. Nullo modo Lutheranorum Sententiam admittunt Duran 4 d. 11. q. 3. De Corp. Sang. Domini Profanae novitatis dogma In. 4. Sent. q. 6. Dico quod in Altari est vere Transubstantiatio Occham Ibidem Primus Medus potest teneri quia non repugnat rationi nec alicui Authoritati Bibliae est rationabilior facilior ad tenendum inter omnes modos Quia tamen determinatio Ecclesiae in contrarium existit sicut patet extra de summ Trin. de Fid. Et communiter omnes Doctores ten nt quod ibi non remanet substantia panis ideo etiam teneo quod non remanet ibi substantia panis sed illa species quod illi coëxistat Corpus Christi Biel in Canon Missae Lect. 40. Quamvis expresse tradatur in Scriptura quod Christi Corpus sub speciebus panis continetur tamen quomodo ibi sit Christi Corpus an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum aut sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum pane manentibus substantia accidentia panis non invenitur expressum in Canone Bibliae Ibidem Ex his aliis plurimis Authoritatibus Sanctorum habetur quod Corpus Christi est in Sacramento per Transubstantiationem substantiae panis vini in Corpus Sanguinem