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
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
Sinners upon Earth in the likeness of Man deny'd that he was truly Man. 'T is true many Dissenters from the Catholic Church and Hereticks grounding themselves on this Scriptural Passage Christ appeared in the likeness of Man eagerly taught that he was a Phantasm or Appearance not a natural Man composed of Flesh and Bone. And you their Faithful Imitator gloss after the same manner not upon Scripture but upon a single Passage of one Father and this too borrowed from Gratian. But with how little reason you gloss after this manner these following Passages of S. Austin taken out of the same Gratian will farther demonstrate The First is part of the Canon wherein your Objection is contained These are his Words What exteriorly appears in the Sacrament is a Figure the Truth is the Body and Blood of Christ made of the Substance of Bread and Wine The Second Passage is We faithfully confess it is before Consecration Bread and Wine which Nature made but after Consecration the Flesh and Blood of Christ which Benediction consecrated The Third is the meaning of that Passage of our Saviour The Bread which I will give in the 6th of St. John which words determine in St. Austin's mind How Christ is Bread not only as he is the Word which gives all things life but also according to the Flesh assumed for the life of the World. Is this not real Flesh Paragraph VII YOU mention but one more Testimony but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered It is in his Treatise de Doctrina Christiana where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or commanding us to do good it is not figurative if the contrary it is figurative for example except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you this seems to command a heinous Crime therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord. If I should deny that St. Austin speaks here of receiving the Sacrament you would be puzled to find out a warrant for your famous Assertion For many Learned Writers judiciously remark that these words except ye eat of my Flesh in Saint Austin's Sense may be thus explicated except ye eat it by Faith by Piety by Good Works which is a Spiritual Communion out of the Sacrament of the Passion of our Lord. And if this be true as it is more than probably so St. Austin says here what all Catholics profess For we all say we may communicate spiritually of the Passion of Christ by Faith believing in Jesus when we receive not the Sacrament and yet we believe in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But if you will still keep this Holy Father whose Learning has always been the Admiration of Mankind out of his wits to use your Phrase a slight reflection supposing he speaks here of Sacramental Communion will help him to return to himself and reconcile him to the Catholic Affirmation I think one of a mean Capacity can distinguish the manner of eating and the thing eaten Which if true St. Austin may literally understand the thing eaten in the Sacrament to be the true Flesh of Christ God and Man and yet at the same instant hold that the manner of eating this Flesh to which this Passage except ye eat my Flesh has referenee is Spiritual For although the true Body be taken in the shape of Bread into the Mouth and let down into the Stomack yet it is not ground with the Teeth or separated in pieces We are taught after a Spiritual manner to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. Lissen to the Voice of God and you 'l hear the Gospel mention eating a Man take eat this is my Body The manner is Spiritual for the Body is given in the shape of Bread and in this Sense St. Austin calls these words except ye eat my Flesh a figurative Speech The Substance or the thing eaten is not here mentioned by the Saint But it is the true Body of Christ as the same Saint assures us else-where in these Lines We believe in the Sacrament with faithful heart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man Christ Jesus giving us his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drank although it appear more horrible to eat than to kill Human Flesh to drink than to spill Human Blood. Every word almost instances a new Argument for the truth of the Flesh This oral receiving with mouth God and Man This horror of eating and drinking Flesh and Blood this Antithesis between eating and killing drinking and spilling terminated to the same substance leaves not the least scruple to doubt that the thing eaten is real Flesh and Blood. And pray what horror would there be to eat an Image of Flesh or what Language speaks of killing the Figure of a Man The same Saint in his Exposition on the 33d Psalm hath this Passage He 's truly our Lord who truly gave us his Body to eat in which he so much suffered Elsewhere he says the Faithful receive into their mouth that Blood which redeemed them And in his 27th Treatise on St. John speaking of St. Peter's Confession I find this remarkable Sentence You are Christ the Son of the living God and what you give in your Flesh and Blood is nothing else but your own self Now you must acknowledge the way I have prescribed or find some other expedient to reconcile St. Austin's Wit with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or all the World will imagine you put your own to a desperate adventure Article VII YOU mention two Testimonies out of Theodoretus's Dialogues between a Catholic under the name of Orthodoxus and a Heretic under the name of Eranistes who maintained with the Eutichians that the Humanity of Christ after the Ascension was changed into the Divinity I 'll examine each apart Paragraph I. The Dispute of Orthodoxus and Eranistes in the First Dialogue ORthodoxus undertakes to shew that the Humanity of Christ alwaies remain'd This he proves because the Humanity was a Vail or Garment to the Divinity as we read in Genesis where Jacob prophecy'd of the Messias He washed his Garment in Wine and his Cloaths in the Blood of the Grape Eranistes replys this is understood literally of his proper Habit with which he was cloathed upon Earth Orthodoxus resumes that Jesus called himself the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and the Blood of our Saviour is called the Blood of the Vine And if our Saviour be called the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and from the side of our Saviour ran Fountains of Blood on the rest of his Body The Prophet rightly foretold that He washed his Robe in Wine and his Cloths
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
Sense understand this to be meant of true Bread Others notwithstanding this natural Exposition in the behalf of the Roman Catholic Assertion will have the word Communion to signifie the Substance of Bread. If it must signifie Substance let us deal fairly and in the place of Communion substitute the word Substance and so we shall easily see to what this Substance belongs The Bread which we break is it not the Substance of the Body of Christ Neither can the Church of Rome as well argue from the following Verse 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body that all Christians are substantially chang'd first into Bread and then into the Natural Body of Christ as you will have it Because we see no Reason in the World for this And the Divine Apostle instructs us otherwise declaring the precise and only Reason of this Unity For we are all Partakers of the same Body 'T is Participation not any Substantial Change in our selves makes us one in Christ Nor is a pressing Example wanting in the Apostle to the same purpose are not they the Pagans which eat of the Sacrifices Partakers of the Altar You instance the same Apostle speaking of the Consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three Verses together This is Acute and Subtile But each Witty Contrivance is not true It is not true St. Paul calls the Consecrated Elements the Bread and the Wine We read indeed in three Verses together the bare word of Bread attributed to the Eucharist as often as you eat this Bread and this is all we read which may be said without any prejudice to the Substantial Change. And this for two Reasons both dictated by the Holy Ghost First By reason of the outward appearance of Bread. Secondly Because it formerly was Bread. The First Reason St. Luke authorises in the Acts. Behold two Men stood by them in white apparel Here the bare Name of Man is attributed to Angels and Angels are only Men in appearance The Second Reason is deduced from two Substantial Conversions We read in Exodus They cast down every Man his Rod and they became Serpents but Aaron's Rod swallowed up the Rods of the Magicians And in St. John when the Ruler of the Feast had tasted the Water that was Wine He tasted Water and the Water was Wine The Serpent is called a Rod and was a Serpent because the Serpent and the Wine were formerly a Rod and Water It is then true that the bare Name of bread may be attributed to the Eucharist without any prejudice of the Substantial Change of Bread into the true Body of Christ And if it be not true that St. Paul says the Consecrated Elements are Bread and Wine it is true that St. Paul calls the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body Jesus took Bread and when he had given thanks brake it and said take eat this is my Body which is broken for you So does St. Chrysostom What is the Bread the Body of Christ So does St. Ambrose This Bread is Flesh You resume this is my Body which is broken cannot be literally understood of his Natural Body broken because his Body was then whole and unbroken I answer how can you contradict our Saviour who says this is my Body which is broken And if it be Christ's Body 't is his real Body for he had no Phantasm or imaginary Body Nor did I ever hear that Christ had two real Bodies But the same Body may have two different existences a Natural and Supernatural Existence For if God can give a Natural Existence to what is not can what is hinder God from adding a Supernatural Existence Now these Words which is broken cannot be understood of the Natural Existence of our Saviour's Body hanging on the Cross for there his Body was unbroken whence that of St. Chrysistom we may see this in the Eucharist and the contrary on the Cross His bones shall not be broken Nor is it hard to conceive how the Body of Christ may be said to be broken in the Sacrament For as a Substance is said to be visible by reason of the visible accidents which environ it Thus we commonly say I saw a Man and yet nor Soul nor Substance of the Body but only the shape and outward appearance of the Substance was the object of the Eye So likewise Christ's Body in the Sacrament takes the denomination of broken from the Species of Bread which is truly divided Article V. The Silence of the Apostles at the Institution YOU ought not to be surprised if the Disciples frequently full of Questions and Objections should make no difficulty of this matter when our Saviour instituted the Sacrament not so much as ask our Saviour How can these things be or tell him We see this to be Bread and Wine and thy Body distinct from both My reason is because when the Jews and the Disciples were blamed for these inquiries at the promise of our Saviour the Apostles assisted with Divine Grace gave credit to our Saviour's Words And if they believed the Promise why should they be disquieted at the Institution We read after these words in St. John where the Promise of Christ in the Sacrament is given The Bread which I will give is my Flesh This Passage the Jews therefore strove amongst themselves saying how can this man give us his Flesh to eat This Jewish Opposition was seconded with the murmur of Christ's Disciples many therefore of his Disciples when they had heard this said This is an hard saying who can hear it This murmur after all our Saviour's Arguments to settle the Jews in the belief of what was promised ended in a plain desertion or leaving of Jesus from that time many of his Disciples went and walked no more with him Here is the reluctancy you sought for and the Objections you demanded in the Apostles But do you think this Resistance was laudable in the Jews Do you believe this Opposition was commendable in the Disciples Or rather to be disturbed at our Saviour's Ordination and Assertion Is it not the beginning of Incredulity And yet for all this you raise Sense and erect it as an Idol to the Peoples Devotions Bewitching Sense whose Allurements intice the greatest Integrity of Noblest Souls and would win too their Thoughts if less than a God interposed Hence this Speech of St. Hilary that great Persecutor of Arianism There is folly in declaring for Jesus Christ had we not received from him this Lesson of Truth Jesus says the Bread is truly Flesh and the Wine is truly Blood after this Declaration ther 's left no place to doubt of the verity of his Flesh and Blood. St. Ambrose opposes to the restless importunity of Sense the prerogative of the Deity Lest asking of God what we expect from man reason of things we should entrench upon Divine Prerogatives And what more unworthy than to believe men
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
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
receiving in the Sacrament from the presence of Christ's Immortal Body the living Seed of Incorruption rise when dissolved by death increased with Immortality This agrees well with St. Irenaeus's design demonstrating in the place objected that our Bodies are capable of Resurrection because we receive in the Sacrament the true Body of Christ that Body which consists of Flesh Blood and Bones How can they deny says he the Flesh to be capable of the Gift of God For we are Members of his Body of his Flesh and of his Bones This is not spoken of a Spiritual or Metaphorical Man for a Spirit has neither Bone nor Flesh but it is delivered according to the disposition of Man which consists of Flesh of Nerves and Bones which is nourished with the Chalice which is his Blood and increased with the Bread which is his Body Do not Flesh Nerves Bones and Blood belong to a true Substantial Body You add St. Irenaeus 's words preserved by Oecumenius when the Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catecumeni that is such as were disposed but not yet baptized and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians These Servants having nothing to say that might gratifie those who offered violence to them except only that they had heard from their Masters that the Divine Communion was the Blood and Body of Christ they thinking that it was really Blood and Flesh declared as much to those who question'd them The Greeks taking this as it really were done by the Christians discovered it to others of the Greeks who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confess it To whom Blandina boldly answered how would they endure to do this who by way of exercise or abstinence do not eat that Flesh which may lawfully be eaten Now if we consider Blandina's Answer we shall find therein contained a pious denyal of what was objected and a Christian reserve of what was received in the Sacrament A pious denial of eating the Flesh and Blood of a Child as the Greeks and all Pagans conceived after a carnal manner which shall be more amply discoursed hereafter And this caused Blandina to say How could they be guilty of such a heinous eating who abstain upon fasting days from Flesh which may lawfully be eaten A Christian reserve not discovering the Mystery to Pagans which was esteemed a betraying of Religion Thus Tharsilius the Acholyt as venerable Beda relates having the blessed Sacrament about him was seized on by the Barbarians and martyr'd because he refused to shew it St. Ambrose declares the discovery of the Mystery to those who were not baptized pass'd not for an instruction but for a sort of Treason in Religion St. Cyril says We speak not clearly of the Mystery to the Catecumeni and we are often constrained to make use of such Expressions which are understood by the Faithful instructed and do not offend other Assistants Such was Blandina's Reply which neither offended the Greeks nor betrayed the Mystery Article III. Upon Tertullian TErtullian proves against Marcion as you write the Heretique That the Body of our Saviour was not a meer Phantasm and Appearance but a real Body because the Sacrament is a Figure and an Image of his Body His Words are these The Bread which our Saviour took and gave to his Disciples he made his own Body saying this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body But it could not have been a Figure of his Body if there had not been a true and real Body Tertullian often sententious and difficult in expression as Lactantius and St. Jerom affirm may easily be misunderstood and misrepresented This Father's design here is to confute the Marcionites who defended that the God of the Old Testament was opposite to God the Father of Christ Author of the New Law. He makes good this undertaking proving the perfect agreement of both Testaments completed in Jesus who did not abolish but fulfil the Law when he changed the Shadow into a Body the Figure into Truth As Tertullian phrases it in his Fisth Book against Marcion This Accomplishment he shew'd from that of Jeremy where we read how the Jews fast'ned to the Cross the Bread of Christ that is his Body This he evidenced because Bread in the Old Law was a Figure of Christ's Body These are his Words It is what God has revealed in your own Gospel calling Bread his Body making known by this that Christ whose Body the Prophet represented in Bread long before he fulfilled this Figure gave from this very time of the Prophecy Bread to be the Figure of his Body These Words Christ gave the Bread even from the time of Jeremy to be the Figure of his Body represent Christ as Master and these others Jeremy represented in Bread the Body of Christ exhibit the Prophet as Minister Both testifie that Bread was a Figure in the Written Law and the Subordination of Jeremy to Jesus proves the concord of Christ with the ancient Testament which was Tertullian's peculiar Task The same he pursues in the place by you cited Bread He made his own Body saying this is my Body that is a Figure in the Prophet of Christ's Body This sense agrees well with the foregoing Tenor of this learned Father's Discourse 2. These following Words are another Confirmation But it would not have been a Figure of his Body if there was not a true Body He does not say it was not a Figure he says it would not have been a Figure in the Old Law. 3. Marcion argues for you but why did he call Bread his Body and not something else Tertullian answers that he argued thus not knowing Bread was an ancient Figure of the Body of Christ as we learn from Jeremy 4. He confirms the same in these Words You may likewise acknowledge the Old Figure of Blood in Wine It follows also from hence that our Saviour's Body was not a Phantasm or an Appearance which was another of the Marcionits Errors but a real Body not that the Sacrament as you would have it but that Bread in the Old Law as I have demonstrated was a Figure and Image of his Body in the Sacrament which must be a true Body otherwise there is a Figure of a Figure which your own party will not allow of Nor could it adds Tertullian have been a Figure of his Body if there had not been a true and real Body If for all this you will pretend that as Bread in the Prophet was a Figure so likewise is Bread still in the Eucharist a Figure of Christ's Body I may without prejudice to the Catholic Belief humour you so far as to grant the Sacramental Bread is a Figure but a Figure joyned to the Reality For if you will say what you find not in Tertullian that the Bread in the Sacrament is
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