deluded Souls it will be necessary to examine the pretended grounds of so false a Doctrin and to lay open the monstrous Absurdity of it ANSWER And yet notwithstanding all this there is a Sect of men in the World so abandon'd and given up by God to the efficacy of delusion as confidently to deny this revealed truth and to impose this strange Negative Article of Faith of theirs That in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after Consecration by any person whatsoever under no less penalties than the temporal loss of their Estates and Livelihoods the loss of their Lives the formal renouncing of the Catholic Faith and Religion which is dearer to them than their Lives and consequently Eternal damnation Therefore to undeceive which we hope is possible these deluded Souls it will be necessary to shew the real grounds upon which Transubstantiation is built that so the monstrous absurdity of the contrary Doctrin may be made to appear DISCOURSE And in the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin II. I shall produce our Objections against it And if I can shew that there is no tolerable ground for it and that there are invincible Objections against it then every man is not only in reason excused from believing this Doctrin but hath great cause to believe the contrary FIRST I will consider the pretended grounds and reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin Which must be one or more of these five Either 1st The Authority of Scripture Or 2ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviour's words This is my Body in this Sense Or 3ly The Authority of the present Church to make and declare new Articles of Faith. Or 4ly The absolute necessity of such a change as this in the Sacrament to the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5ly To magnifie the power of the Priest in being able to work so great a Miracle 1st They pretend for this Doctrin the Authority of Scripture in those words of our Saviour This is my Body Now to shew the insufficiency of this pretence I shall endeavour to make good these two things 1. That there is no necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation 2. That there is a great deal of reason to understand them otherwise ANSWER In the handling of this Argument I shall proceed in this plain method I. I shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the Catholic Church for this Doctrin II. I shall weigh the Objections which the Author makes against it And if I can shew that there is a real ground for it and that the Objections against it are weak and inconsiderable then every man is not only in reason obliged to believe it but hath great cause to reject the contrary First I shall consider the solid grounds and reasons of the Catholic Church for this Doctrin Which are at least these five 1st The Authority of Scripture 2ly The perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Christian Church as an evidence that they always understood and interpreted our Saviours words This is my Body in this Sense Or 3ly The Authority of the Church in every Age to declare propose and exhibit when by misinterpretation of Heretics they are forc'd to it a more explicit Sense of the Ancient Articles of our Faith. Or 4ly The infinite Mercy and condescension of God to operate such a change as this for the comfort and benefit of those who receive this Sacrament Or 5ly The just dignity of the Priest whom God is pleas'd to make use of as his Minister for the working so miraculous a change 1st The Catholic Church hath always grounded the Doctrin of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation upon the Authority of Divine Revelation in these words of our Saviour This is my Body Now to shew the validity of this Proof I shall endeavour to make good these two things I. That there is a necessity of understanding these words of our Saviour in the Sense of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation From whence it will necessarily follow II. That there is no reason at all for the understanding them otherwise DISCOURSE First That there is no necessity to understand those words of our Saviour in the sense of Transubstantiation If there be any it must be from one of these two Reasons Either because there are no figurative expressions in Scripture which I think no man ever yet said or else because a Sacrament admits of no figures which would be very absurd for any man to say since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward sign and figure And especially since it cannot be denied but that in the institution of this very Sacrament our Saviour useth figurative expressions and several words which cannot be taken strictly and literally When he gave the Cup he said This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed for you and for many for the remission of Sins Where first the Cup is put for Wine contained in the Cup or else if the words by literally taken so as to signifie a substantial change it is not of the Wine but of the Cup and that not into the Blood of Christ but into the New Testament or new Covenant in his Blood. Besides that his Blood is said then to be shed and his Body to be broken which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first celebration of this Sacrament ANSWER First That there is a necessity of understanding those words of our Saviour in the Sense of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation For these two Reasons 1. Because although there be many figurative expressions in Scripture which all men allow yet this in relation to the Case in hand is not such 2. Although a Sacrament admits of Figures which no man is so absurd as to deny since it is of the very nature of a Sacrament to represent and exhibit some invisible grace and benefit by an outward Sign and Figure Yet the Figure doth not lie where the Author pretends it doth The Rule which men ought to observe in their discourse in relation to Figures is this That a Figure should not be used which the Auditor doth not easily apprehend to be so To compare therefore a Figure which all the World can easily understand to be so with an expression which no man can Construe to be a Figure according to the Rules of human Discourse is very absurd Yet such is the Authors instance from Scripture From whence he alledgeth that when our Saviour gave the Cup he
10. That Water which was by our Lord converted into Wine is still called Water Joh. 2. 9. The Angels are called Men Gen. 19. 8. because they appeared in the shape of Men according to the usual Language of Sense very many instances of which are to be found For our Saviour had fully instructed them before that the Bread which he would give them was his flesh Joh. 6. 51. The Apostle also saith again v. 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body for we are partakers of that one Bread and that one Bread can signifie nothing here but the Body of Christ which indeed is but one altho' appearing in innumerable place of the World at the same and at several times because it is still animated by the same one Soul and Divinity of Christ which cannot be said of the Bread in the Sacrament if but mere Bread for then it would not be one Bread or Loaf but many and of several sorts being received at very many places at the same time And the true reason here why they are called one Bread and one Body or Society of Christians is because they are all partakers of that one Bread viz. the Body of Christ and therefore also all inspired with the same Spirit But in the Authors Sense it would be no reason but they should rather have been many Bodies because they did Eat of so many Breads So that we see he hath still the same success in bringing those Texts of Scripture to uphold his cause which are the most pregnant proofs against him He then proceeds to teach the Catholics how they might argue in his new way from a Sign already Instituted and known as so to an AEnigma or dark saying taken from things of a disparate and really different nature and of no acknowledg'd Resemblance that is from Chalk to Cheese but they beg his Pardon for that Well but the same Apostle in the next Chapter after he had spoken of the Consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three verses together as often as ye Eat THIS Bread and Drink THIS Cup v. 26. Whosoever shall Eat THIS Bread and Drink THIS Cup of the Lord unworthily v. 27. But let a Man Examin himself and so let him Eat of THAT Bread and Drink of THAT Cup v. 28. It is true it was Bread Metaphorically but it was still this Bread with an Emphasis not such Bread as you ordinarily Eat but the Body of Christ which he told us was truly Meat or Meat indeed the true Bread from Heaven John 6. 32. It was a Cup but it was this Cup that is his Blood which was truly Drink or Drink indeed as he also hath taught us John 6. 55. and after examination let the true Christian Eat of that Bread and Drink of that Cup which will strengthen his Body and Soul both much more than the ordinary Bread and Wine can his Body only Our Saviour himself when he had said This is my Blood of the New Testament immediately adds but I say unto you I will not henceforth Drink of this Fruit of the Vine that is of the true Vine as our Lord is pleased to call himself or of that Wine which by the Words of Benediction becomes my Blood being Originally the Fruit of the Vine or possibly it may refer to the unconsecrated Wine that was left in the Vessels until I drink it new that is fresh and newly Consecrated again with you in my Fathers Kingdom or after my Resurrection as some with the Author interpret the place but as others more generally till I drink of that new Wine of another sort and nature in the Kingdom of my heavenly Father where we shall drink of the River of his pleasures Psal 36. 8. and therefore the Authors following observation is nothing worth For after the Apostles were satisfied that they really drank the Blood of our Lord in this Sacrament and fed upon his Real Body it was an easy and familiar Metaphor to call them Bread and Wine because the outward Species gave a sufficient hint for the understanding of this Figurative Speech suitable to the Language of Sense in the instances above mentioned out of Scripture and because there was true Spiritual nourishment conveyed to the faithful by the Body and Blood of our Saviour thus received as there is Corporeal nourishment received by the Natural Bread and Wine which we take for the refection of our Bodies DISCOURSE Besides if we consider that he celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible these words should be understood literally of the natural Body and Blood of Christ because it was his Body broken and his Blood shed which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand literally of his natural Body broken and his blood shed then these words this is my Body which is broken and this is my Blood which is shed could not be true because his Body was then whole and unbroken and his Blood not then shed nor could it be a propitiatory Sacrifice as they affirm this Sacrament to be unless they will say that Propitiation was made before Christ suffered And it is likewise impossible that the Disciples should understand these words literally because they not only plainly saw that what he gave them was Bread and Wine but they saw likewise as plainly that it was not his Body which was given but his Body which gave that which was given no his Body broken and this Blood shed because they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body whole and unpierc'd and therefore they could not understand these words literally If they did can we imagine that the Disciples who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections should make no difficulty of this matter nor so much as ask our Saviour how can these things be that they should not tell him we see this to be Bread and that to be Wine and we see thy Body to be distinct from both we see thy Body not broken aud thy Blood not shed From all which it must needs be very evident to any man that will impartially consider things how little reason there is to understand those words of our Saviour this is my Body and This is my Blood in the sense of Transubstantiation nay on the contrary that there is very great reason and an evident necessity to understand them otherwise I proceed to shew ANSWER Besides if we consider that our Lord celebrated this Sacrament before his Passion it is impossible that these words should be understood otherwise than properly of the real Body and Blood of Christ because it was his Body broken and his Blood poured out which he gave to his Disciples which if we understand as figurative only of his natural Body broken and his Blood shed then these words this is my Body which is broken and this is my Blood which is shed could not be true because his
hearing will discover to be Fallacies That which the Servants at the Marriage of Cana in Galiee took from the Fountain was Water that which they poured into the Water-pots was the same that they took from the Fountain that which the Guests drank was the same that the Servants put into the Water-pots But that which the Servants took from the Fountain which they poured into the Pots was Water therefore it was Water which the Guests drank Or your Argument may in a shorter way be turn'd against you thus That which Christ took into his hands he gave But that which he took into his hands was not Sacramental Bread nor virtually Christs Body therefore that which he gave was not Sacramental Bread nor virtually Christs Body And now repeating your Argument truly tho' without all your heap of words I shall expose it's Fallacy plainly That you say which Christ took c. he gave but he took Bread therefore he gave Bread. I distinguish the Major That he took he gave unchanged or in the same manner he took it I deny What he took he gave changed and made his Body I grant and so agreeing he took Bread I deny your Consequence Look into your Logic again observe it well and you will find that to make a Proposition contradictory to ours viz. That that which Christ gave was his Real Body you must observe the Rules of your Master Aristotle so as to speak de eodem modo eodem tempore which you have not here known how to do Yet you for all this would be esteemed the Great Champion for the Protestant cause and boast that this your matter and Argument is so Demonstrative that you cannot but stand amazed that Men who pretend to reason can refuse it This pretended Demonstration might be much more exposed had I leasure whilst I am discoursing upon so serious a point to insist upon trifles Neither would the Remarks which he afterwards makes help him in the least For tho' our Saviour did say according to St. Luke and St. Paul This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood yet this passage doth not fully determin that by This is my Body is meant This Bread is my Body For the word This in the Proposition This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood being joyned with the word Cup by a known Figure to signifie in a General way what is contained in the Cup only makes the Proposition to Signifie That which is contained in the Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which in the Evangelists St. Matthew and St. Mark is exprest by these words This is my Blood of the New Testament so that the word This still altho' joyned to Cup hath no other kind of signification than it hath in the Words This is my Body as I have before explained them Also if it had the Sense which the Author of the Expostulatory Letter would give it then the meaning would be This Wine is the New Testament in my Blood or as according to St. Matthew and St. Mark This Wine is my Blood of the New Testament which words in the Sense that our Adversaries put upon them would in those circumstances wherein they were spoken have been contrary to the Rules of Human Discourse suitably to what is shew'd in the ensuing Answer concerning the Words This is my Body taken in their Sense The Adversary indeed in This Expostulatory Letter insolently Triumphs because he hath found out some mistakes in Translating c. But his Answer to the Fathers Authorities which have been so often truly cited as an undeniable Evidence against his Party will easily be shew'd to be unsatisfactory when we come to their proper place and he so slightly attacks as you have seen our main Evidence the proper Sense of our Lords words as hardly to bring the face of an Argument against it So we Read that a Humorsom Emperor when he came to invade Great Britain only gather'd Cockles and yet for this he demanded Triumph in a Letter to his Senators thinking his Shell-spoils worthy Offerings for the Capitol We have one Request now to make to those who oppose the Doctrin of Transubstantiation That because it is necessary for an Answerer to know distinctly what the Persons mean to whom he is to make an Answer they would deal sincerely with us and since we have told them in what Sense every word in the Proposition This is my Body is taken by us and how the Catholic Church doth necessarily infer Transubstantiation from them they would now deal as candidly with us and tell us as plainly as we have done how they understand each of these words I have reason to intreat this favor of them because altho' they seem sometimes to maintain only a Vertual not Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament which Opinion of theirs I have chiefly opposed in the Ensuing Answer yet at othertimes they and even the Discourser himself readily acknowledge a Great Supernatural change to be made by the Divine Benediction and the Author of the Expostulatory Letter hath a Reserv'd Distinction of Christs Natural and Spiritual Flesh and Blood seeming to allow that Christ hath a Spiritual Body in the Sacrament We know not but that he intends the same which the Learned Author of a Brief Discourse of the Real Presence hath lately given us of two Bodies of Christ the one Natural in which he was Crucified the other Spiritual belonging to him as he is the Eternal Logos in whom is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Life or Spirit which goes along with the Divine Body of this Life or Spirit of Christ and consequently is rightly call'd his Body For this he grounds himself upon that earnest lofty and sublime Discourse as he calls it of our Saviour in the 6th Chapter of St. John confessing ingenuously that it seems to him incredible that under so lofty mysterious a style and earnest asseverations of what he affirms tho' to the scandal both of the Jews and his own Disciples there should not be couched some most weighty and profound Truth concerning some Real Flesh and Blood of his touching which this vehement and sublime Discourse is framed pa. 40. And than again pa. 42. and 43. It is plain says he that our Saviours Discourse in that Chapter has for its Object or Subject not the manner or way of receiving his Body and Blood as if meant of that very Body and Blood on the Cross to be receiv'd in a Spiritual manner which Interpreters several of them meaning of the Reformers drive at and which he thinks would be a very dilute and frigid Sense of such high and fervid asseverations of our Saviour but the Object of his Discourse says he is his very Flesh and Blood it self to be taken as the Fish and Loaves were wherewith he lately fed them or it is himself in reference to his Flesh and Blood which belongs to him as he is the
disapprove of the Definition made in King Edwards time and that they were for a Real Presence And of this we can make no doubt when we peruse the Writings of those Pastors who succeeding them till this very time have given so full an account of their Faith in this weighty instance and yet have past uncensur'd nay have been of greatest esteem in their Church And how indeed can we imagin that Men of the least sincerity would leave an Article of infinite concern to Mens Immortal Souls in so undeterminat a Sense that Christians might believe which they pleas'd either that Christs Body was thus Really present in the Sacrament which if it were not they incurr'd the guilt of gross Idolatry or that it was not so which if Really it was they were guilty of Infidelity in not believing Our Lord upon his Word and a breach of the first Commandment in not Worshipping the second Person in the Trinity presenting himself to us in this Sacrament according to that saying of the Great St. Augustin concerning this matter Peccamus non adorando We sin in not Worshipping Such an Equivocation as this in an Assembly of Christian Pastors upon the proposal of so great a Point must needs have been of far more dangerous consequence to Christians than the Ambiguous Answers of the Delphic Oracle were to the Heathen World. This far then the business is clear'd that the Real and not Virtual Presence only of Christs Body in the Sacrament was the Doctrin of the English Church for what some Men amongst them of great Latitude in Belief have maintain'd to the contrary doth not prejudice the truth which the more sound of that Communion have generally asserted And notwithstanding that their Late Clergy in the Year 1661. in compliance to the Dissenting Party by the chief management of the late Lord Shaftsbury's Politic Spirit were induced after hard solliciting to receive an Additional Declaration tho' not Printed in their Rubrick Letter at the end of their Communion Service yet since they would not by any means be brought to receive the former Declaration of King Edward the Sixth's time without the change of those words It is here declared that no Adoration is here intended or ought to be done unto any Real and Essential Presence of Christs Natural Flesh and Blood into these which follow It is here declared that no Adoration is here intended or ought to be done either unto the Sacramental Bread and Wine there Bodily Received or unto any Corporal Presence of Christs Natural Flesh and Blood the words Real and Essential as you see being changed into Corporal this cannot but reasonably be imagin'd to be done out of Caution to the Present Church her maintaining still a Real and Essential Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament whereas those in the latter time of King Edward seem to have denied it Moreover tho' it be said in this last Declaration that the Sacramental Bread and Wine remain still in their very Natural Substances and therefore may not be Adored yet if by Natural Substances or Essences here is no more meant as the words may very well be understood and are shewn by Catholics to be understood in the Authorities of Theodoret and Gelasius than the external and sensible Essences or properties of Bread and Wine and not the internal Substance or Essence this Declaration will not be repugnant either to the Real Presence or to Transubstantiation and the Adoration will be terminated neither on the Internal or External Essences of Bread and Wine but upon Christ the only begotten Son of God Really Present in the Blessed Sacrament which the Council of Trent it self hath declared to be the Sense of the Catholic Church as to the Point of Adoration Again if the last part of this Declaration wherein it is said that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not here it being against the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one be yet urg'd to prove that the above mention'd Real Presence of Christs Body in the Eucharist is not at present the Doctrin of the English Church I answer that whereas it is there said that the Natural Body and Blood of Christ are in Heaven and not here meaning in the Sacrament if by Natural Body be there understood Christs Body according to the Natural manner of a Bodies being present and according to which tho' in a glorified state it actually exists in Heaven we do not say that the Body of Christ is here in this Sacrament in that natural manner any more than the Doctors of the English Communion but if no more be mean't by the words Natural Body but the very true and as we may call it Essential Body of Christ tho' present in a supernatural manner proper to the Sacrament it is a very bold assertion to say absolutely that it is against the Truth of it to be so or that this cannot possibly be true since we know so little to what the Omnipotence of God which could convey this very Body into the Room where the Disciples were the Doors being fast shut can extend it self and yet the Body be the very same Body in verity of Nature which is in Heaven the Presence of which in the Sacrament a late Eminent Author of the English Church sufficiently intimates that some he might have said very many of their Divines have maintain'd notwithstanding the vain endeavors which the Answerer to the Treatise Printed at Oxford to shew the sentiment of the Church of England Divines in this Point has us'd to wrest them to another Sense For after having told us his own Opinion viz. that all which the Doctrin of his Church meaning the Church of England implies is only a Real Presence of Christ's Invisible Power and Grace so in and with the Elements as by the Faithful receiving of them to convey Spiritual and Real Effects to the Souls of Men he subjoyns if any one yet thinks that some at least of our Divines have gone farther than this i. e. do seem to speak of the Presence of the very same Body which is in Heaven let them know says he it is the Doctrin of our Church I am to defend and not of every particular Divine in it Now altho' by those wary terms of every particular Divine and seeming to speak he endeavors what he can both to diminish the number and their clear acknowledgment of the Presence of the same Body in the Sacrament which is in Heaven yet he could not but know that the Asserters of it were very many and still are even since the Declaration and such as may be presumed to know the meaning of it as cunningly worded as it is as well if not better than himself and for this besides what I have had by particular converse with divers I will appeal to the sincerity of those who have heard the Determinations which
how this can be since the accidents or outward species of Bread still remain I desire them to resolve these Questions How a thousand species can be reflected from the same Glass at once to a thousand Eyes at the same time How the same Glass being whole transmits one intire species and yet broken into many small pieces every piece reflects the same whole and intire species there being all the while but one subject and what that subject is wherein these species do subsist Or let them but give a true account of the nature of any small Particle of that matter which composeth the Vniverse before they pry too far into the secrets of Divine and supernatural Mysteries and think that God can do nothing but in such a manner as they can comprehend Therefore our Adversaries had good reason to say speaking concerning the Objections against the Trinity Incarnation and the Resurrection with identity of Bodies That if there were as plain Revelation of Transubstantiation as of those then this Argument were good and that if it were possible to bring a thousand more Arguments against Transubstantiation yet that we are to believe the Revelation in despite of them all Again That Those who believe the Trinity in all those Niceties of Explications which are in the Schools and which now a days pass for the Doctrin of the Church believe them with as much violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as can be imagin'd to be in the Point of Transubstantiation And do not therefore insist upon the Point how far Reason is to be submitted to Divine Authority in case of certainty that there is a Divine Revelation for what they are to believe And that there are things haud pauca not few in number which we all believe that if human Reason be consulted do not seem less impossible and less manifestly contradictory than Transubstantiation it self Now that the words of our Lord This is my Body being understood in a proper Sense as in the ensuing Answer is prov'd they ought to be do necessarily infer Transubstantiation is manifest Because as is allowed by all that was Bread which our Lord took into his hands before he spoke those Words there must therefore a Change be made otherwise it could not Really become Christs Body nor that which he gave his Disciples be in a proper Sense so called And the Accidents or sensible species still remaining as before the change must be made in the substance This is what the Tridentine Council infers in these Words Because Christ our Redeemer did affirm that truly to be his Body which he offer'd under the species of Bread therefore it was ever believed in the Church of God which also the Holy Synod now again Declares that by the Consecration of the Bread and Wine there is a Conversion made of the whole substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of our Lord Christ and of the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood which Conversion is by the Holy Catholic Church fitly and properly called Transubstantiation The foregoing Inference will evidently appear to be true if we consider the proper and genuin Sense of every particular Word in that Proposition of our Lord This is my Body This here in its true and proper Sense signifies some Thing Essence Substance or Object in general under such an appearance as was Demonstrated to Sense For if by the word This were exprest the whole Nature of the Predicate in such a Proposition e. g. as This is Bread or This is my Body then the Proposition would be purely Identical or Tautological for it would be no more than if one should say This Bread is Bread or This my Body is my Body Whereas it is the property of the Attribute to extend and fully to determin the Idea of the Subject by adding clearness to it And we must remember that the English word This is exprest by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Original Greek here as also in most other Languages not by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Masculine Gender so as to agree with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Bread. Now tho' there be no distinction as to the Gender in the English word This Yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This Bread as our Adversaries would have here meant is false Grammar In like manner the Word Is hath here it's proper Sense not as it is used sometimes for Signifies The Word My can have Relation to no other Person but our Lord who spoke it nor consequently to any other Body but his own truly so as to it's Substance and therefore truly exprest by the Word Body that which was before Bread at the beginning of the Enunciation This is my Body being now made to be his Body at its Conclusion because in Practical Propositions as this is with God to say and to do are the same thing and thus you see what is meant by each word in the Proposition This is my Body as explicated by Catholics tho' you do not believe the Mystery Let us now observe what a Late Expostulator hath said against this Explication He undertakes to prove that the Words This is my Body cannot be taken in a literal I conceive he means proper in opposition to Figurative Sense which he supposes his Enemies themselves of our Party will grant if he proves that the This here mentioned is Bread which he thus undertakes to do That saith he which our Saviour took into his Hands when he was about the Institution was Bread that which he blessed was the same thing that he had taken into his hands that which he brake was the same thing that he had blessed that which he gave them when he said it was his Body was that which he had broken But that which he broke which he blessed which he took into his hands was Bread Therefore it was Bread which he gave his Disciples and by This is meant This Bread. This Induction saith the Expostulator is so fair and so clear that I am sure you cannot evade it But what Sir if after all your mighty boasting This prove to be neither a fair Induction nor any Argument at all but a mere Fallacy or Illusion proceeding from what Logicians call Ignoratio Elenchi Ignorance of Argument or proof And just such a one as This would be if proposed to you That which the Butcher exposed to Sale was raw Flesh that which you bought was the same thing that the Butcher exposed to Sale that which you Eat was the same thing that you bought But that which you bought which the Butcher expos'd to Sale was raw Flesh therefore you Eat raw Flesh The Kitchin-Boy will tell you where the Fallacy lies and help you out at a dead lift But to make the matter yet more plain I shall give you some other instances in your way of Sophistry which the most ignorant at the first
Eternal Logos Thus evidently did our Saviour seem to this Learned Man to speak all along to the very end of his Discourse of a Really Eating his Flesh and Drinking his Blood and not of the manner of Eating as if it never came nigh them but only they thought of Flesh and Blood God knows how far distant from them and so Eat the human Flesh of Christ by meer thinking of it and Drank his Blood after the same imaginary manner Thus to avoid the Catholic Tenent of Transubstantiation which he could bear no more than the Jews and yet verifie the Words of Christs Bodies being receiv'd verily and indeed and such other Expressions found in the Catechism and Homelies of the Church of England which he thought himself bound to maintain he was driven to distinguish a double Body of Christ the one Human and Natural the other Spiritual and Divine but both Real as has been said before Good God what Chimera's will not a mind preoccupated with Error frame to it self rather than submit to the Truth Luther indeed tells us of about ten Opinions of the Sacramentarians in his time and a Book was Publisht in the Year 1527 in which were reckon'd no less than 200 several Expositions of the Sense of these words Hoc est Corpus meum This is my Body What we would gladly know of our ADversaries with whom we have now to deal is which of these now two hundred and one Opinions it is that they maintain or whether they have any other yet in store for Error hath no End different from all these For surely after all they must be forc'd to allow that there is but one True Sense of our Saviours Words viz. either that it is his very true Substantial Body which is taken and received or a figure only what vertue soever they please to assign to it If the former they fall in with the Catholics or Dr. Moors Tenet if the latter what Vertue soever they assign to a Figure it is not the Real Body nor the Body Really Present Let them speak plain that the World may understand them The Faithful are not to be deluded with Ambiguities in a Point of so great concern to their Immortal Souls Reader be pleased to observe concerning the manner and Method of the Ensuing Treatise and Answer that the Discourse against Transubstantiation is faithfully here reprinted Section by Section and a Reply made to the Sections in their Order Also that because the Discourser against Transubstantiation would delude unwary Christians by making them believe that Catholics have no proof for this Doctrin from Scripture this first Part which is chiefly concerning Scripture Authority is publisht by it self to be consider'd distinctly to which in convenient time the Second Part is to be added Some ERRATA'S to be Corrected Pag. 18. in Marg. for Preface read Introduction p. 27. last line read under the species p. 42. in the Hebrew Citation read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 bis p. 60. read Relicks Observe that in the Marginal Notes p. 43. 56 58 63. the word infra hath relation to the Second Part of the Answer which is not yet Published Transubstantiation DEFENDED In Answer to a Treatise Intitled A Discourse against Transubstantiation DISCOURSE Concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper one of the two great positive Institutions of the Christian Religion there are two main Points of difference between Us and the Church of Rome One about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation in which they think but are not certain that they have the Scripture and the words of our Saviour on their side The other about the administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds in which we are sure that we have the Scripture and our Saviour's Institution on our side and that so plainly that our Adversaries themselves do not deny it ANSWER COncerning the Sacrament of Union the Lord's Supper which is the chief of those several positive Institutions of Religion which Christ hath Ordained in his Church there are many great differences even between Protestants themselves it is no wonder therefore if there are as many between Protestants and Catholics Of these the Author gives two instances the one about the Doctrine of Transubstantiation the other about the Administration of this Sacrament to the People in both kinds As for that of Transubstantiation he would have done well to have told us in what supposition he means to take the Word in his Discourse If he suppose the True Real and Substantial Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament and take the Word Transubstantiation precisely as it signifies that Presence not with the Bread but by it's being chang'd into his Body this is a difference indeed and the only proper one in this supposition between him and Catholics in this matter But then if he would have proceeded sincerely and as one that was really Master of so much sense as he talks of in this Treatise he should have held to his Point and not impugned what he supposes but if he suppose no such Real or Substantial Presence of Christs Body and under the name of Transubstantiation fight expresly against the Real Presence through his whole Discourse as it is evident he doth and therefore ought to have call'd it a Discourse against the Real Presence and it's consequence Transubstantiation and not a Discourse only against Transubstantiation then the difference is not only as he would make it with the Catholics but with the Lutherans also and those of his own Communion as King James Bishop Andrews Mr. Thorndike and many others who profess'd to believe the Body of Christ to be present in the Sacrament no less truly than Catholics do But however he compose this difference with them yet the Catholics as for their Tenent do not think only as he says but are certain as I shall shew in the Process of this Discourse that they have the Words of our Saviour which they do not doubt to be Scripture on their side And for the other Point viz. the Administration of the Sacrament in both kinds they are sure that neither he nor any of his party have or ever can prove from the Scripture and our Saviours Institution that he laid a Command upon all the Faithful to receive it always in both kinds and this they constantly affirm But before I leave this Paragraph I cannot but desire the Reader to take notice of two things first That how sure soever the Author makes himself that he hath the Scripture and our Saviours Institution on his side yet his good friend Dr. Tillotson in his Rule of Faith which he makes Scripture only to be speaking in his own Name and that of his Party saith We are not Infallibly certain that any Book for example S. Matthew or any other of the Evangelists is so Ancient as it pretends to be or that it was Written by him whose Name it bears or that this is the sense of such
and such passages in it it is possible all this may be otherwise The second is how high soever he talk of the Catholics not being certain and his own being sure of having the Scripture for them yet he doth not vouchsafe to tell us what he means by that Word viz. whether express Texts or deductions only If express Texts Let him produce one if he can for that new Article of his Creed a Creed much younger than that of Pope Pius the fourth I do believe that there is not any Transubstantiation in the Lord's Supper or in the Elements of Bread and Wine c. If Deductions only Why may not the Catholics who have the express Words of Scripture that it is his Body infer as surely from thence that there is a change in the Elements of Bread and Wine as the Protestants who have no such express Text that it is not his Body can do to prove that there is no change DISCOURSE Of the first of these I shall now treat and endeavour to shew against the Church of Rome That in this Sacrament there is no substantial change made of the Elements of Bread and Wine into the natural Body and Blood of Christ that Body which was born of the Virgin Mary and suffered upon the Cross for so they explain that hard word Transubstantiation ANSWER Of the former of these I shall now treat and endeavour to vindicate the Catholic Church which declares it as an Article of Faith that by Vertue of Consecration in the Sacrament there is a Conversion made of the whole substance of the Bread into the substance of the Body of our Lord and of the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood which Conversion she conveniently and properly calls Transubstantiation a hard word indeed to those who will not believe the great Mystery expressed by it DISCOURSE Before I engage in this Argument I cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our Adversaries to dispute a matter of Sense which is one of those things about which Aristotle hath long since pronounc'd there ought to be no dispute ANSWER Before I engage in this Argument I cannot but observe what an unreasonable task we are put upon by the bold confidence of our Adversary not to dispute a matter of sense since upon this all parties are agreed that there ought to be no dispute but to Answer all the absurdities which the Author is engaged in by espousing false principles and among the rest as the chief that Sense can judge of the internal nature or substance of things For all that is the proper object of Sense that is the species or outward accidents of Bread and Wine are allowed to be present in the Sacrament by all Catholics as well as Separatists And we strangely admire that he should not remember that Rule of his Master Aristotle which every young Scholar learns in the beginning of his Logick that Substantia non incurrit in sensus Substance is not the object of sense From whence it is apparent to all Men that have the use of their Reason that all the Authors cracking confidence upon this Argument is founded upon a vulgar Error slily insinuated that Catholics believe that which they see in the Sacrament of the Eucharist to be the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ But lest any should be deceived with this popular Argument and take up a prejudice against us as in good reason they may since they are made to believe that we would perswade them out of their Senses I shall be so far from endeavouring to do this as the Author fondly imagins all Catholics do that rather out of a deep sentiment of gratitude to the great God of Nature who hath so fearfully and wonderfully made these Bodies of ours I shall freely acknowledge that the Senses do not deceive us at all For the deception doth not lie at any time in the Senses but in the Judgment and the Senses do always give true hints to the mind when their Organs and the Medium are rightly disposed and they are employed about their proper and adequate Objects What we may certainly conclude from the goodness and veracity of God is that he will not deceive Man the Creature that he loves and therefore usually those objects which are represented to him by his Senses as having relation to the conservation of his Body are of such and such a determinate substance as the outward and sensible accidents do hint them to be of So that he is not mistaken in them unless he judge rashly and then too there are means provided by which he may correct his Error Thus the substance of Fire is generally represented under the species or usual form of Fire Of a Dove under the usual form or likness of a Dove So that we may allow in this manner that ordinarily the substance doth incur into the mind through the Senses by means of the accidents but it is certain that the Senses cannot judge either of the substance or accidents Therefore God who is the Author of Nature and can change it when he pleaseth that Man may not be deceived in this kind doth usually inform him when he maketh any substantial change of this Nature in his Creatures which is above the reason of Man to comprehend from any hints made by his senses as being truly Miraculous Thus when the Holy Ghost appeared in the form of a Dove Man was informed by God that it was really the Holy Ghost in substance of Nature and not a Dove When the same Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles in the Visible appearance of Cloven Tongues of Fire they had notice from Heaven that this was truly that Holy Spirit which came in this Visible shape When Angels appeared in the forms of Men they had it revealed to them that they were notwithstanding Angels When our Lord presented himself to his Disciples under the species of Bread he told them plainly that it was his Body To shew which Revelation to have been made from the Authority of Holy Scripture and Fathers will be the subject of the ensuing Discourse This which I have here said being fully conclusive against the Argument of sense's being properly the Judge of substance And now who is it that abuseth the senses the Author or Catholics He by applying them to judge of substance which is an object that is no way adequate to them would make them to deceive Men. We employing them about their proper objects which are here the accidents or outward species of Bread and Wine which as by them we are convinced do still remain after Consecration prove the Miracle from sense because at the same time that these appear the understanding being inlightened by Faith discerns the true and real substance of Christs Body to be veiled under them which makes the thing truly Miraculous To employ therefore the senses about
said This Cup is the New Testament in my Blood which is shed or more properly poured out for you and for many for the remission of Sins Did not our Lord plainly read in the minds of his Disciples that by the Cup they would understand that which was contained in the Cup If any one should advise the Author when he is thirsty to drink off his Glass would he be so inconsiderate as to swallow it together with the Wine Nay further so unhappy is the Author as to urge this instance of holy Scripture in the first place which alone is enough fully to clear the Point against him Neither the Apostles nor any men else could be so ignorant of the manner of human discourse as not to apprehend that our Saviour by the Cup meant what was contained in it which was most certainly Christs Blood for otherwise it could not be said of it as it is Luke 22. 20. that it was then poured out for the Apostles and for many for the remission of Sins it is said is poured out in the Present Tense not shall be poured out in the Future therefore here can be meant only the Blood of Christ as now poured out in the Sacrament for them not as it was afterwards shed from his Crucified Body upon the ground The Original runs thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Where in construction 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agrees with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Wine as a Figure only of Christs Blood or signifying its virtue could not be poured out for the remission of Sins You might with more congruity of Speech affirm of an Image of the Blessed Virgin This is that which conceived the Son of God because in this there is some plain resemblance to the Prototype Beza a great Critic in his way though an Adversary to the Catholic Doctrin in this Point not being able to deny this Proof would rather have the Scripture to be thought false although that be the whole Foundation of their Faith than change his Opinion and saith that it is a Solecism and should be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He concludes that the holy Spirit or St. Luke that divinely inspired Pen-man the most eloquent of all the Evangelists could be sooner mistaken though in a matter of so great moment than himself or else he would have the Scripture to be falsified and corrupt in this place and not himself For he acknowledges that all the ancient Manuscripts which he had seen and even his own which was of great Authority and of venerable Antiquity venerandae Antiquitatis together with the Syriac Version to which he gives this Elogy that it was deservedly accounted to be of greatest authority maximae meritò authoritatis did conspire together to refer the effusion of Blood to the Cup. The Author therefore and all that separate from the Catholic Church in this Point must either at last be forced to confess here as Beza doth concerning those words of our Lord This is my Body That this saying thus exprest cannot be retained but it must prove Transubstantiation after the manner of the Papists or else that the Holy Scripture the Foundation of Christian Faith is made invalid So that it is plain from what hath been said that the Cup is here put for what is contained in the Cup and that the words so taken do signifie and operate a substantial Change not of the Cup but of the Wine in the Cup and that not into the New Testament or Covenant but into the Blood of Christ in which this New Covenant or Testament is made sealed and confirmed Besides that his Blood is said here then to be poured out and his Body then to be broken and given for us which they could not be unless they were then really in the Sacrament because the Passion wherein his Body was peirced only not broken as in the Sacrament and his Blood was shed from his Crucified Body upon the ground not only poured forth from one Vessel to another and drunk as in the Sacrament followed the Institution and first Celebration of this Sacrament DISCOURSE But that there is no necessity to understand our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation I will take the plain concession of a great number of the most learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this Controversie Bellarmin Suarez and Vasques do acknowledg Scotus the great Schoolman to have said that this Doctrin cannot be evidently proved from Scripture And Bellarmin grants this not to be improbable and Suarez and Vasques acknowledg Durandus to have said as much Ocham another famous Schoolman says expresly that the Doctrin which holds the Substance of the Bread and Wine to remain after Consecration is neither repugnant to Reason nor to Scripture Petrus ab Alliaco Cardinal of Cambrey says plainly That the Doctrin of the Substance of Bread and Wine remaining after Consecration is more easie and free from Absurdity more rational and no ways repugnant to the Authority of Scripture nay more that for the other Doctrin viz. of Transubstantiation there is no evidence in Scripture Gabriel Biel another great Schoolman and Divine of their Church freely declares that as to any thing express'd in the Canon of the Scriptures a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after Consecration and therefore he resolves the belief of Transubstantiation into some other Revelation besides Scripture which he supposeth the Church had about it Cardinal Cajetan confesseth that the Gospel doth no where express that the Bread is changed into the Body of Christ that we have this from the Authority of the Church Nay he goes farther That there is nothing in the Gospel which enforceth any man to understand these words of Christ this is my Body in a proper and not a metaphorical Sense but the Church having understood them in a proper Sense they are to be so explained Which words in the Roman Edition of Cajetan are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. Cardinal Contarenus and Melchior Canus one of the best and most judicious Writers that Church ever had reckon this Doctrin among those which are not so expresly found in Scripture I will add but one more of great authority in the Church and a reputed Martyr Fisher Bishop of Rochester who ingenuously confesseth that in the words of the Institution there is not one word from whence the true Presence of the Flesh and Blood of Christ in our Mass can be proved So that we need not much contend that this Doctrin hath no certain foundation in Scripture when this is so fully and frankly acknowledged by our Adversaries themselves ANSWER The Author hath had very little Success yet in that which he calls a Discourse against Transubstantiation therefore because he would now do some Execution he is forc't to come down to his Adversaries
necessarily deduc'd from Scripture and therefore this Authority makes nothing against us Cardinal Cajetan ' s words were censur'd and expunged by Authority and therefore ought not to be brought against us Cardinal Contarenus freely declares that all Divines agree although it be not plainly deliver'd viz. not in express words yet following Reason as their Guide and what is this but necessary rational deduction That this viz. which is done in the Sacrament cannot be effected by a local motion but by some change of the substance of Bread into the Body of Christ which is call'd Transubstantiation Melchior Canus doth acknowledg that the Church hath by the Spirit of Truth explain'd some things which are accounted obscure in the Holy Writings and that She doth justly judge the Authors of the contrary Opinions to be Heretics But things may be necessarily contain'd in Scripture altho' with some obscurity So that there is not so much as one of these Authors unless it be that which is condemn'd by the Church and therefore in that Point is none of ours who hath told us That there is no necessity to understand our Saviours Words in the Sense of Transubstantiation Lastly As if that true Martyr Bishop Fisher had not suffer'd enough already the Author exercises further cruelty against him by a false and imperfect recital of his words and corrupting their Sense This Holy Bishop indeed speaking of the words of Institution saith There is not one word put here by which it can be prov'd that in OVR Mass the true Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ is made to be which last words Is made to be The Author falsly renders by these words can be proved But this good Martyr doth not say that Christs words of Institution are not to be understood in the Sense of the True and Real Presence of his Body as made to be in that Sacrament which our Lord himself Consecrated but that the Power of Priests NOW to Consecrate in our Mass after the same manner is not express'd in the bare words of Institution And it is evident from the immediately following words of this Reverend Bishop that this is his true Sense which words run thus For altho' Christ made of the Bread his Flesh and of the Wine his Blood it doth not therefore follow by vertue of any word here plac'd that WE shall effect the same as often as we endeavor it As is also plain from the other words of this Reverend Authors in the same Chapter Without the Interpretation of the Fathers and the usage of the Church by them deliver'd down unto us no body will prove out of the bare words of Scripture that any Priest can Consecrate the true Body and Blood of Christ For although we allow Christ to have said what Scripture saith he did in this kind to the Apostles out of Luke and Paul it doth not therefore follow that he gave the same Power to all that were to succeed them for a Power of casting out Devils was given to the Apostles But that this Learned and Pious Bishop asserted the change of the substance of the Bread into the Body of Christ to be the necessary Sense of the words of Christ This is my Body is clear from these words of his If the Substance saith he of Bread is changed into Christ's Body Christ ought not to have said otherwise than he hath said And again If the substance of Bread remain then Christ ought to have spoke otherwise We must take notice that this Pious Bishop was defending Tradition as necessary for the Interpretation of some places of Scripture and particularly such which relate to the Power that those who succeed the Apostles have to Consecrate and upon very good Grounds since without Tradition we cannot conclude the Scripture it self to be the Word of God and no Church can prove the Succession of her Pastors to this high Function which is without doubt a Fundamental Point Since therefore the Protestants hold that there is a lawful Succession of Pastors in Gods Church as necessary to the Salvation of Mankind as evidently deduced from Scripture interpreted by Tradition tho' not from the bare words of the Institution of the Eucharist no less than Catholics and that they have as full a Right to Consecrate as the Apostles themselves they must therefore allow that they do do so And then there can be no doubt rais'd from the words of this holy Bishop but that Christ's Body and Blood are truly in the Sacrament by way of Transubstantiation which Doctrin he allows to have a certain Foundation in Scripture But the Author here would rather pull down the Pillars on which the Church of Christ stands by interrupting the Episcopal Succession and undermine its very Foundation than not set a Face upon his Argument that he may thereby delude unwary Christians Upon the whole matter it is plain from what hath been said 1. That not any of these Catholic Authors which are cited held that there was no necessity to understand our Saviours words in the Sense of Transubstantiation but the contrary 2. That they indeed differed only about some curious Speculations concerning the Dependences and Circumstances of this Doctrin of Transubstantiation which they Discours'd of in a Problematical way as for instance Whether this Transubstantiation is a Mutation and Transubstantiation Productive that is to say by vertue of which the Substance of the Body is produc'd from the Substance of Bread or a Mutation and Transubstantiation Adductive that is to say by vertue of which the Substance of Bread ceases to be and that of the Body be Introdu'd in it's place And whether in this Adductive Transubstantiation the Cessation of the Substance of Bread and Wine is to be call'd Annihilation or whether it ought to be exempt from this Name for as much as altho' it cease to be nevertheless this Cessation of it's Essence hath not Non entity for it's final Term but the Substitution of the Essence of the Body of Christ or the like and such kind of disputes which did not at all relate to the Essence of the Article of Transubstantiation but only to some consequences and modes of it for all the School-men agree That the Bread and Wine are chang'd and Transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ by vertue of Consecration the Substances of Bread and Wine ceasing to be and those of the Body and Blood being substituted in their place 3. They evidently deduce the Essential part of the Doctrin of Transubstantiation from Scripture and altho some few of them do sometimes say that the bare words of Scripture do not compell us to believe the less material consequences of it yet they do not deny that these also may be rationally deduc'd 4. The Author doth not pretend to prove from these Authorities that these Writers did not hold the Real Presence of Christs Body here but only a sign and
Lords words should be taken in the Figurative Sense of these expressions but contrarywise in a proper Sense I shall lay down these distinctions and Rules to shew the disparity by Signs are either Naturally so as black Clouds are a Sign of Rain Smoak is a Sign of Fire or else so only by Institution and agreement concerning which latter I again distinguish That of Signs of Institution some have so much of Natural Resemblance as that they may fitly be chosen to signifie and represent altho' not enough to exhibit the Idea of the thing upon the bare sight or mentioning which afterwards by Institution they are to signifie unto us Thus a living Creature Sacrificed Typifies or signifies Christ Crucified upon the Cross and some have not Thus the word Moses doth signifie such a Man where there is no Natural Resemblance between these Letters compounded into a word and the person Represented by them but this depends upon mere Institution and compact amongst Men. 2. All rational Discourse used amongst Men is founded upon the imperfect penetration at least into the Minds of those with whom we discourse and the presumed Knowledge of them For we regulate our Speech according to the apprehension that we believe those with whom we converse have of it If we believe Mens Minds to be prepared to understand our Discourse then we utter it to them if they are notable as yet to perceive what we say then we must either prepare them beforehand or else give a distinct and formal explication of our words soon after we have uttered them otherwise we abuse our Auditors From whence it follows 3. That that sort of improper Discourse wherein we give the Sign the name of the thing signified or to the thing signified the name of the Sign being very rare to make it intelligible it is required 1. That the Sign be plainly Instituted 2. It must be justly presumed that those to whom we speak regard the thing as a Sign or else we ought to advertise them that we intend to use it as so For there is no example either in Scripture or ordinary human Discourse of a like expression to this of our Lords by which at the very first constituting any thing into a Sign it is called the thing signified without preparing the minds of the Auditors to understand it so To apply these Rules to the case in hand we must observe that this Dream or Vision of Pharaohs was a Sign of Institution it having been appointed by God to signifie something to him Again indeed this Sign had some sort of fitness in it's own nature to be made a Sign of what it was to represent even more than Bread hath to represent Christs Body yet it could not exhibit to Pharaohs Mind the thing which it was to signifie without some explicit interpretation of good Authority and it was so obscure a Sign that none of all his Magicians could give it Therefore Pharaoh proposes this to Joseph as a Dream Gen. 41. v. 22. Advertising him of what he saw in a Dream which Joseph undertaking to Interpret Pharoah could not but consider his words as an Interpretation of this Sign of Institution therefore by the Second and Third Rules beforementioned it was very rational for him to put the Predicate in the place of the Subject the Sign for the thing signified by saying the Seven good Kine are Seven Years and the Seven good Ears of Corn are Seven Years that is they signified or represented Seven Years of Plenty since it is very well known that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie and represent But then it must be known beforehand that they do only signifie and represent otherwise it cannot be understood when they only express a Resemblance and when Identity On the contrary if in the expression of our Lord This is my Body the Bread had been a Sign of Institution tho' it have some remote resemblance yet since it could not of it self before plain positive Institution bring the Idea of the thing supposed to be represented to the Mind therefore since there was no such foregoing Institution or action to prepare the Minds of the Apostles to consider it as so and these words of Christ are no explication of a Sign of Institution but must be the Original Institution it self of a Sign if any had been here made and the Apostles were no ways advertised before-hand to consider the Bread as a Sign since the Predicate therefore could not rightly here be put in the place of the Subject much less a Pronoun Demonstrative be used according to a former Rule therefore these words This is my Body according to the known Rules of human Discourse which it were Blasphemy to say our Lord would swerve from so as to speak absurdly do signifie that That was his Real Body which he held in his hands and not a Sign only of his Body as our Adversaries falsly pretend Neither do I believe that any sensible man who had never heard before of this figurative Sense which the Author and Sacramentarians have so often inculcated into their Followers as to make them prejudiced in the Case would upon reading the Institution of the Sacrament in the Gospel or if they had heard Christ speak the words ever have imagined that by these words This is my Body no more was to be understood than that this which Christ held in his hands was only a Sign of his Body any more than our Saviours Apostles and Disciples could be made to understand the like words John 6. 51 52. I am the living Bread that came down from Heaven And the Bread that I will give is my Flesh which I will give for the life of the world the Jews therefore strove amongst themselves saying how can this Man give us his Flesh to eat in that Sense But would have understood his meaning to have been thus This which hath the outward appearance of Bread is really my Body This which hath the resemblance of Wine is my Blood. Not as the Author fallaciously proposeth the meaning This Bread signifies my Body this Cup signifies my Blood But that he should enjoyn them to do that which they then saw him do That is offer up hereafter his Real Body and Blood under the Species of Bread and Wine by way of an unbloody Sacrifice for a Memorial of that Bloody one of his Body and Blood which he was soon after to offer up upon the Cross And in this great Mystery a true Christian one that hath an humble Soul rightly disposed for the Belief of our Lords words as St. Augustin had who speaking of our Lord saith Christ was carried in his own hands when recommending to them his very Body he saith This is my Body For he carried that Body in his hands such a one I say can readily believe that our Saviour did properly and really hold himself in his hand and give
away himself but not from himself with his own hands by reason of the natural Connection and Concomitance which his Sacred Soul and Divinity have with his Body and Blood under the visible Species of Bread and Wine DISCOURSE Or whether we compare these words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time as Justin Martyr tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 this Passover is our Saviour and our refuge Not that they believed the Paschal Lamb to be substantially changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt or into the Messias the Saviour whom they expected and who was signified by it But this Lamb which they did eat did represent to them and put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt when by the slaying of a Lamb and sprinkling the Blood of it upon their Doors their first-born were passed over and spared and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the Messias the Lamb of God that was to take away the Sins of the World. ANSWER The Author having tried several very different sorts of expressions in Holy Scripture with which he hath offer'd to compare the words of our Lord's Institution seeming not at all to be satisfied in his Mind about their Analogy to these yet not able to discover any of a nearer resemblance being at a great loss hath recourse to the Authority of an Ancient Father and now he will either find one or make one if he can for his purpose For considering that our Saviour had just before this Institution celebrated the Passover it might seem reasonable to conclude that he should now imitate that manner of speaking which he used so very lately Therefore it is but finding or coyning a Paschal Form of Institution suitable to the saying of our Lord This is my Body and he may think his work is done What pity it is that he could not discover one in all the Scripture or Fathers for his purpose but that he must be forc't to use such pitiful Sophistry as he here doth to impose upon his Reader in this manner Whether saith he we compare these words of our Saviour with the ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews from Ezra's time as Justin Martyr tells us But where doth he tell us so There 's not a word said by him that that which is cited here was an Ancient Form of the Passover or that it was used by the Jews from Ezra's time this is a pure Invention of the Authors which you will be fully convinced of by consulting Justin Martyr himself about the words which were by the Jews left out of those Interpretations of Ezra's or Esdras's wherein he expounds the Law of the Passover and which run thus Esdras said to the People This Passover Sacrifice is our Saviour and our Refuge but if you think and it enter into your Heart to conceive that we render him abject in a Sign and afterwards place our hope in him let not this place be forsaken for ever saith the Lord of Hosts and if you do not believe his words nor hearken to his Preaching you will be had in derision by all Nations This is all that the Father saith of the matter where we find not one word said of what the Author cites as being an Ancient Form of the Passover used by the Jews but only that in these words Esdras expounded the Law of the passover to the People neither is here the least mention made of it's being used by the Jews from Esdras's time all this is the mere Fiction of our Author who did not consider that Holy Scripture and Learned Authors amongst his own party give us an account of the Paschal Forms that were used which are quite different from this which no Author gives us as one but himself For Exod. 12. 11. God saith It is the Lord 's Passover or more explicitly Ver. 26. 27. It shall come to pass when your Children shall say unto you what mean you by this service That ye shall say it is the Sacrifice of the Lord 's Passover And Ver. 13. It is said the Blood shall be to you for a Token or Sign and when I see the Blood I will pass over you And Dr. Hammond tells us that the Lamb drest in the Paschal Supper and set upon the Table was called The Body of the Passover or the Body of the Paschal Lamb not the Body of Christ of which notwithstanding it was a Sign and Type another Paschal Form he tells us was This is the Bread of Affliction referring to the unleavened Bread Which Forms are nothing like this Expository Phrase of Esdras cited by Justin Martyr Well but altho' this be not a Paschal Form yet it is a certain expression which Esdras used concerning the Passover and I shall now shew so great a disparity between it as so considered and that of our Lords Institution as will plainly discover how falsly it is urged here to prove that our Lords words are Metaphorical For 1. These words were true in a proper Sense which our Adversaries will not allow Christs to be The Passover was a Saviour or Salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a way of speaking used by other Authors and explained in the following word and a Refuge to the Jews in a strict Sense God having appointed it as a means and Instrumental cause at least of their deliverance at it's first Institution and it was a Salvation and Refuge to those who afterwards used it aright Why then may we not likewise conclude from hence that that which Christ gave to his Disciples when he said This is my Body was really his Body 2. All the Jews who had a right understanding of things considered the Sacrifices that were offered as Types of Christ the Messias and this of the Passover more signally as so as appears from this Authority of Esdras out of Justin Martyr in these words If you think that we render him abject in this Sign and afterwards place our hope in him Therefore it was not at all unreasonable to Attribute the thing signified to that which they regarded in their minds as a Sign by saying This Passover Sacrifice is our Saviour and our Refuge Not that they could have any ground from hence to believe the Paschal Lamb to be substantially changed either into God their Saviour who delivered them out of the Land of Egypt or into the Messias the Saviour whom they expected and who was signifyed by it But this Lamb which they did Eat being known to be a Sign of Institution did represent to them and put them in mind of that Salvation which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt when by the slaying of a Lamb and sprinkling the Blood of it upon their Doors their first-born were passed over and spared and did likewise foreshew the Salvation of the
natural organized and visible Body was then whole and unbroken and its Blood not then shed yet that very Body as broken in the Sacrament was said to be then given for them that very Blood as there poured out was said then to be poured out for the remission of sins Therefore it was a propitiatory Sacrifice although offered before as well as after Christ had suffered to Pay the full Price of our Redemption because its whole nature did consist in the relation which it had to the Sacrifice that was offered up for us upon the Cross from which it received all its vertue It was very possible therefore for our Lords Disciples to understand these words properly because although they plainly saw that what he gave them had the Species of Bread and Wine yet they believed him when he said that it was his Body that was given for them although his Body at the same time gave what was given his Body broken and his Blood poured out for them although they saw him alive at that very time and beheld his Body whole and unpierced because he had plainly told them so who had the Words of eternal Life and could not deceive them and for this reason they could not but understand his words properly Otherwise can we imagin that the Disciples who upon all other occasions were so full of questions and objections if they could have conceiv'd that these words were to be understood in a parabolical or improper Sense would not have desired an Explication of them of our Lord as they did of other Parables which were more easy to be understood than these words in such a Sense nor so much as ask our Saviour how can these things be That they should not tell him we see This to be Bread and That to be Wine and we see thy Body to be distinct from both we see thy Body not broken and thy Blood not shed what therefore should be the meaning of these words or that our Saviour the true Guid and greatest Lover of Souls or any of his Apostles after him should never have given any Explanation of them I have already shewed in answer to the Author that the words of our Lord This is my Body could not according to the Rules of Human Discourse be taken Figuratively so as to Signifie this is a Sign of my Body unless the Apostles had bin before-hand prepared to understand them as so There are no words Recorded by any of the Evangelists to dispose them to believe the words in such a sense nor any indeed that relate to the matter unless it be some sayings of our Lord in the Sixth Chapter of Saint Johns Gospel that were delivered before the Institution of the Eucharist which I shall now consider for the further Clearing of the Point as also those words of Saint Luke This do in remembrance of me used by our Lord at the time of the Institution and prove that none of these expressions do at all favor our Adversaries Figurative Sense but the clean contrary We Read in the Sixth Chapter of Saint John's Gospel that our Saviour had prepared the minds of his Disciples before-hand by two great Miracles both which tended towards the strengthning of their Faith in the Sacred Eucharist the Former being a Figure of this Sacrament since in it he multiplied Five Loaves so as to make them feed five thousand persons altho' the fragments which remained filled twelve baskets and were more in quantity than the five Loaves were at the first so that they needed not to doubt but he could feed as many thousands as he pleas'd with his own precious Body exhibited under the Species of Bread in the blessed Sacrament and yet his Body be still one and the same The latter shewing them that he could Convey his Body how and whither he pleased which made them ask him when they saw him on the other side the Sea without taking Ship at the shore Rabbi when camest thou hither Then he proceeds to instruct them in Three of the greatest Mysteries of Religion 1. His Incarnation or coming down from Heaven and taking Human Flesh upon him from verse 27. where he also gives them a hint of the blessed Sacrament that meat that perisheth not to v. 51. 2. The Real Presence of his Body and Manducation thereof in the Sacrament which wonderful Presence there the Fathers did ever compare to the Incarnation it self from v. 51 to v. 59. 3. The Ascension is mentioned to Prove the two former Mysteries v. 62. Our Saviour having styled himself the Bread of Life towards the beginning of the Discourse of the Incarnation v. 33 and 35. after some Explication made of this Repeats it again twice v. 49 and 51 to inculcate it the better into his Disciples minds And then instructs them how they should be partakers of this Bread not by believing only that the Son of God came down from Heaven and was made Man taking upon him Human Flesh but by feeding upon his Flesh in the Sacrament which being a deep Mystery that they might not doubt of the truth of it he explains to them what he meant when he said v. 51. I am the living Bread which came down from Heaven if any man eat of me he shall live for ever not by telling them that by this Bread is meant the Doctrin which he taught or that by eating this Bread is to be understood the believing of this Doctrin in a Metaphorical or parabolical Sense as the Socinians and Sacramentarians fondly imagin or in like manner as he Explained the Parable of the Sower that Sowed good Seed telling them that the Field is the World the good Seed are the Children of the Kingdom or as when he had said I have meat to eat which ye know not of he explained himself by saying my Meat is to do the Will of him that sent me putting the Predicate in the place of the Subject in the manner before hinted and saying the Bread is my Word or the Doctrin that I teach but quite otherwise he assures them that the Bread that he will give them is his Flesh which he promiseth to give for the life of the world and which by an Elegant Metaphor Christ calleth Bread because it was to afford nourishment to the Soul and Body both in a Spiritual manner in the Sacrament as the ordinary Bread was to nourish the Body in a carnal manner by way of corporeal digestion out of the Sacrament And there is no doubt but the Jews understood our Lord in a proper Sense when they said v. 52. How can this Man give us his flesh to eat Our Saviour did not answer this doubt by telling them as he easily might have done in the Sacramentarian way that no more was meant but believing stedfastly in his Death and applying to themselves the merits of it and which Explication he would have certainly given them then or afterwards by
Himself or by his Disciples if no more had bin meant than so as he did in the case of Parables less difficult to understand than this would have bin if it had bin by our Lord proposed as one but proceeds to deliver this profound Mystery to them in more express words using a vehement Asseveration to confirm the truth of it Verily verily I say unto you except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you Whoso eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood hath eternal Life and I will raise him up at the last day For my Flesh is truly meat my Blood is truly drink He that eateth my Flesh and drinketh my Blood dwelleth in me and I in him As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father So he that eateth me even he shall live by me This is that Bread which came down from Heaven not as your Fathers did eat Manna and are Dead He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever All which words being used by our Lord to clear the doubt and answer that Question of the Jews How can this man give us his Flesh to eat I cannot imagin how the Real Presence of Christs Body and its Manducation in the Sacrament could have bin more fully Asserted in order to the disposing of his Disciples to believe the Sense of the Reality when he should Institute his blessed Sacrament And so the Fathers interpret this place And do not say that the Manna mentioned in the 58 verse which was miraculously sent from Heaven was a Type of ordinary Bread made by the Hands of Men and set upon the Table which is of a far more Ignoble Nature and less Significant than the Manna which thus came down from Heaven but of the Real Body of Christ in the Sacrament which was the true Bread from Heaven that nourished to Immortality After our Saviour had spoke thus to them many of the Disciples themselves to whom Christ did not think fit as yet to reveal the manner of feeding upon his Body in the Blessed Sacrament thinking that he meant that his Body was to be eaten in a gross manner like the Capernaites cried out this is a hard saying who can hear it To whom as well as to the Jews who before are said to murmur at him because he said I am the Bread which came down from Heaven and that ask how this Man could give them his Flesh to eat our Lord replies doth this offend you and then clears the Doctrins to them as far as he judg'd convenient for the confirmation of such high Mysteries about which they were to exercise a strong and a lively Faith by saying thus v. 62. What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before As if he should have said if you do not yet believe that the Son of Man came down from Heaven yet when you see him ascend thither again you will be more ready to believe that it was really God who came down took Flesh and dwelt amongst you which Solution had relation chiefly to the former of the Mysteries viz. his Incarnation but withal insinuates that such as believe not his words touching the holy Sacrament and think it impossible for him to give his Body to be eaten in so many places at once being yet on Earth would be much more Scandalized and Tempted after they saw or knew him to have Ascended into Heaven Therefore to clear the latter Mystery and Solve their doubt who thought like the Capernaites that Christ was to have cut pieces of flesh from his body and to have given them to be eaten or that thought his Body to be that of a mere Man he tells them v. 63. It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing that is the Flesh which he had told them before that they must eat altho' not in the gross manner without the Spirit profiteth nothing not but that by the Spirit quickning it it profits very much Suitable to that of St. Paul. 1 Cor. 8. 1. Knowledge puffeth up but Charity edifieth that is Knowledge without Charity puffeth up altho' when Chariy is joyned with it to enliven it it edifies and Charity it self edifieth by Knowledge For if these words of Christ were to be taken in the Sense of the Sacramentarians they would derogate no less from his Incarnation Manhood and Death than from the Real Presence of his Body in the Sacrament in all which without doubt the flesh profiteth very much Wherefore our Lord goes on to tell them here that the words which he spake unto them were Spirit and Life therefore not to be understood in the gross carnal Sense before mentioned which some of his Disciples took them in For it is the use of the Scripture to call Mans natural Sense carnal Reasoning and resisting or not reaching to the belief of Supernatural Truths Flesh and Blood as Matth. 16. 17. Flesh and blood revealed not this to thee c. but the words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and Life therefore not to be carnally understood But as by the Word of God the World was Created and Nature hath been since often chang'd so there is no doubt but Christ could by it change the Bread into his Body as he did daily by ordinary Natural Nutrition but here in a supernatural way Our Lord therefore said unto them that their Fathers did Eat Manna in the Wilderness which was but a Type of this Heavenly Manna in the Sacrament and yet they did Spiritually feed upon Christ the Messias for it is said 1 Cor. 10. 3 4. That they did all eat the same Spiritual Meat and did all Drink the same Spiritual Drink for they Drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ and yet they are Dead all of them a Temporal some of them an Eternal Death also and those of them which now live the Life Eternal received this Life from the Son of God who hath now given us the Antitype of that Manna which the Children of Israel did eat viz. his own Body in the Sacrament something of a far more excellent nature to feed upon which will be to our Bodies as well as to our Souls the Seed of Immortality the Instrument and Pledge of our Resurrection Ascension and Glorification Yet as our Lord said to his Disciples there are some of you which believe not so we may say still of the Sacramentarians who notwithstanding all that Christ hath said will admit of nothing but Signs and Figures of imaginary vertue whom nevertheless our Saviour hath no further instructed in any such easie Sense as this which might certainly have prevented their relapse as well as that of the Jews his Disciples and which if any such Sense had been to be admitted would most certainly have been given that they will not believe our Lord and therefore they go
away and will walk no more with him in the Communion of his Church Having thus made it to appear that these words of Christs Institution This is my Body according to the Rules of human discourse ought to be taken in a proper Sense not only if considered in themselves but especially if we regard what Christ hath said before touching the Sacrament to dispose his Apostles thus to believe them it will necessarily follow that those words also of the Institution This do in remembrance of me which relate chiefly to the Priests Power and Duty as the other did to the Body of Christ in the Sacrament and which St. Paul explains in these words As often as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye shew the Lords Death till he come ought not to be considered as a determination of the former words of the Institution in a Figurative Sense after the Sacramentarian way but as a Declaration of one great end of the Sacrament viz. The calling to mind and setting forth of Christs Death till he comes which is so far from being a Reason to prove that Christs Body is not Really there that on the contrary this Commemoration and Annunciation is founded upon the Real Presence of Christs Sacrificed Body and Blood in this Sacrament since without this it could not be done so effectually in Christs Church as now it is For as the Jews in eating the Peace-Offerings did remember that they were slain for them so by Offering here the Real Body of Christ after the manner of an unbloody Sacrifice we commemorate and set forth in this lively Exemplar that Bloody Sacrifice which Christ himself offered in a different manner upon the Cross and receive the benefit thereof which we need not to question since he gives us daily of this Victim to feed upon in the Blessed Sacrament tho' without the horror of Blood. Shall Christians then under a pretence of Celebrating the Memory of the Passion in the Eucharist evacuate Christs Institution by taking away from this pious Commemoration that which he out of his tender love hath given us as most efficacious in it for the good of our Bodies into which this Sacrifice of Christs Body being received Sanctifies them and Consecrates and prepares them for a Glorious Resurrection as wells as for the good of our Souls Ought we not to consider that Jesus Christ doth not only Command us to remember him but likewise that we should do this by feeding upon his Sacramented Body and Blood since he doth not say that Bread and Wine should be a Memorial of his Body and Blood but that in doing what he prescribes us to do which is that in Receiving his Body and Blood we should remember him And what more precious and lively Memorial could he give to his Disciples and to all his beloved Children what better Legacy could he bequeath them at his departure out of the World than this If the the Primitive Christians were inflamed with Zeal and Devotion when they approached to the Monuments where the Bodies only of Holy Martyrs lay Intombed more especially if they could but touch any of their precious Reliqus being by this means stirred up to a Pious Memorial and imitation of their Holy Lives and Deaths and therefore did Religiously preserve the smallest pieces and even the Nails of that Cross upon which Christ suffered Commemorating thereby his Holy Passion how much more then should our Memory and Love be excited when we approach to the Holy Altar and know that we Receive there tho' veiled under the Sacred Symbols the very Body and Blood of our Lord who Sacrificed himself for us enlivened and quickened by his Grace and Spirit I could now proceed to shew for the further confirmation of what I have here alledged from the Authority of Holy Scripture that unless the words of St. Johns Gospel above mentioned as also the words of our Saviours Institution be taken in the Sense of the Reality or Transubstantiation that there is no promise to be found in Holy Writ of any Spiritual vertue to accompany this Sacrament so that our Adversaries whilst they are so eager to oppose the Reality do as much as in them lies destroy the nature and end of this Blessed Institution and have no argument at all to use against the Socinian who denies the Real Vertue as well as the Real Presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament Which is the reason why I do sometimes term this Vertue which the Author without ground conceives to be in this Ordinance tho' separate from Christs Real Body Imaginary because there is no reason to conclude the vertue of the Body to be here from Scripture unless the Body be so too not that I would derogate at all from the vertue of Christs Body which by reason of the Hypostatical union is Infinite But this task is already performed by a Learned Modern Author And the Reader may easily discern the Truth of what I have here asserted by inspecting such places of Holy Scripture as relate to this Sacrament into the number of which they will not allow the sixth Chapter of St. Johns Gospel to be admitted Having therefore thus explained those places of Holy Scripture which relate to the Blessed Sacrament as also those other Forms of speaking both of Divine and Human Authority which the Author is pleas'd to compare with the Words of our Lords Institution and shew'd upon comparing them together that they will not at all fit his purpose but prove the quite contrary to what he would have them to do I shall now sum up such of the Reasons and Arguments for the understanding the Words in which our Saviour Instituted this Blessed Sacrament in a proper Sense as the Catholic Church expounds them as are plainly deduced from the Nature and End of this Holy Institution and the Manner of expressing it in Holy Scripture which I intreat the Christian Reader seriously to consider of and so conclude this Head of Discourse 1. Because Christ the great Lover of Souls never spake to his Apostles and Disciples in Figures and Parables which had any obscurity or difficult Sense especially if the Discourse related to the Practice of a necessary Duty with an intention to keep them in Ignorance but that their humble and well disposed minds might be the more excited and inflamed with a desire of inquiring into and understanding the true meaning of what he said and that they might the better retain it And because in all such cases even of less difficulty than this of the Sacrament as particularly in the Parable of the Sower of Seed altho' the Mystery concerning the success of the Gospel which was herein prefigured was not necessary for every one to know as that of the Eucharist was Christ did fully explain himself to his Disciples who were also to instruct others Therefore since the words of the Institution of the Blessed Sacrament if understood Figuratively as the
Protestants and particularly the Author would have them to be must need be allow'd to be obscure and difficult because they differ so much among themselves as well as from the Catholic Church about the meaning of them and yet none of the Evangelists nor St. Paul altho ' varying in expressing the Words of Institution have inserted any words which in the least explain the Sense to be Figurative or Parabolical hence it follows That the Church hath great reason to understand them properly 2. Because now just upon our Lords Passion it was the Time for Figures and Shadows to vanish and for Truth and Reality to appear And our Lord was Instituting the Great Sacrament of Christian Religion he could not therefore speak with too much force and efficacy especially since he now spake to his Apostles in private to whom he was used at such times to speak very plainly 3. Because Christ was making his Last Will and Testament which was to be expressed in such plain and distinct Terms that there might be no just reason for his Children to contend about their Legacy And can we be so unworthy as to imagin that in this his Last and Kindest Bequest he left us no more but a Morsel of Common dry Bread to eat and a little ordinary Wine and Water to drink in remembrance of him whereas a kind and good natur'd Man will leave his most precious Jewel to his dear Friend to remember him by when he departs from him to take a long Journy and to make any considerable stay A good Father when he is to dye thinks all his best Goods and Possessions too little to leave his Children He was also delivering a Commandment to observe which that it might be rightly executed ought to be promulged in a manner very intelligible 4. Our Lord was near his Death and therefore it was a time to avoid Obscurity in Speech since he was not to continue any longer amongst them to interpret it 5. Our Saviour in the choice of these words had not only regard to the Apostles but he likewise spake them to all the Church in all succeeding Ages and knew certainly when he pronounced them how they would always construe them and yet for the confirmation of the Sense of the Reality did never suffer it to be call'd in question so much as privately for almost a Thousand Years when also the whole Body of his Pastors who were endu'd with extraordinary Light and Assistance of his Holy Spirit to enable them to interpret aright the Divine Misteries had already just before in Three Councils agreed upon this Sense as that which had been constantly receiv'd in the Church ever since our Saviours Time and which was more explicitly declared against that one Dissenter who sometime after appear'd against it but was ashamed of his Opinion and recanted Lastly if we consider as hath been now fully prov'd That all the places of Holy Scripture as also all other Forms of Human Discourse which are alledged by our Adversaries as like to this of our Lords Institution are wholly different from it shewing them the quite contrary to what they pretend them for and that our Saviour did neither before at or after the Institution any ways prepare or dispose his Disciples to understand these words in a Figurative Sence it must needs be very evident to any Man that will impartially regard things that because Christ ever spake reasonably and in a manner conformable to good Sense and his Power infinitely exceeds the capacity of our Minds therefore there is no Reason to understand those words of our Saviours THIS IS MY BODY and THIS IS MY BLOOD in a Metaphorical Sense as the Author and the Sacramentarins do but an evident necessity to believe them in that proper Sense which necessarily inferreth Transubstantiation as the Catholic Church doth since Scripture interpreted by the Rules of Human Discourse as also the Tradition and Authority of this Church oblige us so to do The latter of which is to be the Subject of the Second Part of the Answer to the Discourse against Transubstantiation The Contents of the First Part of the Answer to the Discourse against Transubstantiation 1. IT is shew'd that our Adversary doth not rightly state the Point Page 1 2. What is meant by Transubstantiation 4 3. The Argument from Sense shew'd to be Senseless ibid. 4. The Catholic Faith is ridicul'd by the Adversary 7 5. The Real Presence and Transubstantiation depends on Gods Veracity 9 6. No Transubstantiation an Article of Faith with our Adversaries and establish'd with Penalties 10 7. The Method of the ensuing Discourse 11 8. The Necessity of understanding our Lords words in the Sense of the Real Presence or Transubstantiation 13 9. The Sense of the Schoolmen corrupted and their Problematical Discourse mistaken for their Conclusion by the Adversary 16 10. The Disparity between the Figurative Expressions in Holy Scripture and the words of Institution This is my Body shews that the Latter are to be taken properly 25 c. 11. Principles upon which the ensuing Discourse is grounded ibid. 12. How Catholics interpret the words of Institution and how Protestants 26 13. In what Sense Catholics allow a Figure in the Sacrament 28 14. Rules to judg of Metaphorical Expressions by 31 2. 15. The Application of the forgoing Rules by which it appears that those merely Metaphorical Expressions of our Saviors being a Door a Vine c. are not at all like to the Form of Consecration This is my Body 33 c. 16. A Metaphor conveys no Spiritual Vertue Page 36 17. The Exposition of Pharaoh's Dream doth not resemble the Sacred words of Consecration This is my Body ibid. 18. Distinctions and Rules for the following Discourse of the Nature of Signs ibid. 19. Application of the foregoing Rules and Distinctions 37 20. The Analogy which the words of Institution This is my Body might have to the Paschal Form in Scripture or to those Phrases cited from Esdras or any of the Rabins doth not prove that Christs words here are taken Figuratively and not in a proper Sense 40 21. A Deeds being call'd a Conveyance doth not prove that the words This is my Body are not to be taken properly 46 22. Texts of Scripture examined and prov'd not at all to favour the Sense of the Author of the Discourse against Transsubstantiation 47 23. Christ's Body being broken and his Bloud being poured out for the Remission of Sins before he was Crucified proves the Sense of the Reality or Transubstantiation 52. 24. The 6th Chapter of S. John's Gospel interpreted as relating to the Blessed Sacrament 54 c. 25. The words Do this in Remembrance of me explain'd 59. 26. The Real Vertue of Christs Body in the Sacrament cannot be prov'd from Scripture unless the Real Presence of his Body it self be admitted 60 27. Further Reasons from Scripture for the proper Sense of the words of Institution which necessarily
unius adjectionem voculae potuisset totam hanc discordiam sustulisse Nam si dixisset hic panis est corpus meum hoc vinum est sanguis meus Omnis omnino sublata fuit controversia The Disparity between the Figurative expressions in H. Scripture and the words of Institution This is my Body shews that the latter are to be taken properly Principles upon which the ensuing Discourse is grounded See M. Arnaud Tom. 2. 1 1. 2 3. fusè de hac re How Catholics Interpret the words of Institution and how Protestants In what Sense Catholics allow a Figure in the Sacrament Rules to judge of Metaphorical expressions by The Application of the foregoing Rules By which it appears that those merely Metaphorical expressions of our Saviours being a Door a Vine c. are not at all like to the Form of Consecration This is my Body a See Rule 1. b See Rule 2. c See Rule 3. d See Rule 4. Contrary to R. r. R. 2. R. 3. R. 4. e See Rules 5 6 f See Rules 7 8. g Contrary to R. 5 6 7 8. See Rule 7. See Rule 3. A Metaphor conveys no Spiritual vertue See Rule 9. Pharaohs Dream doth not resemble the Sacred words of Consecration This is my Body Distinctions and Rules for the following Discourse of the nature of signs Application of the foregoing Rules and Distinctions Ferebatur Christus in manibus suis quando commendans ipsum corpus suum ait hoc est corpus meum Ferebat enim illud corpus in manibus suis Aug. Comment in Ps 33. n Dialog cum Tryph. p. 297. Edit Paris 1639. The Analogy which the words of Institution This is my Body might have to the Paschal form in Scripture or to those phrases cited from Esdras or any of the Rabins do not prove that Christs words here are to be taken figutively and not in a proper Sense * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * See in their Authorities infra * Exod. 1â— 27. * Deut. 16. 3. * Vid. A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist Edit A. 1687. p. 12. * Vid. Exposition of the words Do this in remembrance of me infra * Matth. 26. 29. A Deed 's being call'd a conveyance doth not prove that the words This is my Body are not to be taken properly Other Texts of Scripture examin'd and prov'd not at all to favor the Authors Sense Christs body's being broken and his blood being poured out for the remission of sins before he was Crucified proves the Sense of the Reality * Luke 22. 19 20. This is my Body which is given for you in the prensent tense See also the words of Institution as recited by the other two Evangelists all in the present tense c. 22. 19. The 6. of St. John's Gospel interpreted as relating to the Blessed Sacrament * From v. 9. to v. 15. v. 22. v. 25. Matth. 13. 24. John 4. 32 34. John 6. 51. vers 53 4 5 6 7 8. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * See the Authorities infra v. 41. * V. d. Gregorium Nyssen infra The words This do in remembrance of me explained The Real vertue of Christs Body in the Sacrament cannot be proved from Scripture unless the Real Presence of the Body be admitted * M. Arnaul de la perpetuite de la foy c. Tom. 2. Reasons from Scripture for the proper sense of the words of Institution * See Dr. Hammond in Matt. 13. 13. a Viz The Constantianâ—pâ—litan the second General one at Nice and that of Frankford b In the Council of Rome under Gregory 7. c. c Berenâ—arius * See the Introduction