Saviours words can import no less than the verity of Transubstantiation FIRST MOTIVE The Written Law shadowed future Truth and this Truth was Christ So we read Moses sprinkled with Blood the Book and People saying This is the Blood of the Testament which God hath enjoyned unto you The Blood of the Ancient Covenant was the Figure of the Blood of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament This appears from the words of our Saviour in the Institution This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many This Miraculous concord of the Old and New Covenant This repetition of the very same Phrase is an Evidence beyond denyal that the former was a Symbol of the latter And since you cannot understand the latter of Christs Blood spilt on the Cross Because you pretend St. Luke says his Blood was then shed which is shed for many which preceded the Crucifiction It follows necessarily to be understood of the true Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Because a Figure is not without the Reality nor a Shadow without a true Body SECOND MOTIVE As it is true that Jesus took Bread so are we taught that he blessed it And what he brake and what he gave to his Disciples was without doubt what he had blessed or consecrated The Question is what this was None of the Evangelists say that he gave Bread they say Jesus took Bread and Jesus assures what was blessed broken and given was his Body saying This is my Body If it was then Bread as the Evangelists note Jesus took Bread and after the Divine Benediction or Consecration became his Body as Jesus affirms this is my Body Then without extorting or racking of Scripture without adding figurative Glosses and wicked is the Man who superads to Scripture the facile sense of Scripture readily leads to the plain Article of Transubstantiation THIRD MOTIVE The Circumstances of our Saviour urge for the Literal Acceptation of This is my Body For Jesus spoke to his Apostles to his dearest Friends preparing to bid his last Adieu and then if ever Sincerity discloses it self without difficulty and after a facile and intelligible Method He 's Wisdom it self and knew how to Phrase his Thought He 's Omnipotent and so can surmount what Human Frailty might conceive as impossible He 's Goodness it self and cannot deceive us And therefore said what it was and what he said was true FOURTH MOTIVE Is the conformity of Scriptures For if Christ had ever design'd to signifie that the Eucharistical Bread was only the Figure of his Body it would surprize us what inclin'd him to make use of this Speech this is my Body and after such a choice to leave it barely without explanation when he so carefully taught his Disciples the true meaning of many easier Parables 'T would astonish us finding the three Evangelists with St. Paul who testifies he received the same Doctrin from revelation not constrain'd nor combining to joyn in expression yet to repeat all the same words without the Least alteration And we read in Latin Greek Syriac Arabic all Versions and Languages nothing but the same expression and equal confirmation FIFTH MOTIVE The very same Interpretation of other Scriptural Passages wherein are grounded the chief Articles of Christian Belief enforces the sequel of Transubstantiation For I believe adhering to Scripture as the Rule of Faith that this Passage the word was made Flesh imports a Substantial Union I believe the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father included in these words I and my Father are one I believe one Divine Essence of three distinct Persons revealed in These three are one Upon these Testimonies of Holy Writ Substantially understood I quietly repose my belief of the Incarnation of our Saviour the Son's Divinity and of the sole and undivided nature of the Blessed Trinity This Method is further secur'd by the consent of all those who are and pretend to be true Members of Christ's Religion Now if I follow this Determination so authorized and so certain if I follow this motive of my own Conviction in other like Articles extending the same uncontrol'd Interpretation to this is my Body I must necessarily grant this Inference this is my Substantial Body Thus my Faith seeks to be one as Scripture is one and God one Truth As this literal Reflection is sincere and pious the figurative Explanation of our Saviour's Words wants no Fallacy nor Impiety For if I may presume to give this sense to our Saviour's Words this is not my Substantial Body this Presumption ought to be strongly grounded as allowable just and in Equity to be follow'd And if so then I may lawfully give the same exposition to the three alledg'd Articles For the Scripture urges not more out of this Passage The word was made Flesh the substantial connexion of the Second Person with Human Nature or out of these words I and my Father are one the identity of the Son with the Father or out of these Three are one the unity of Nature in three Divine Persons than out of this is my Body the Substantial Body of Christ If therefore I might lawfully understand our Saviour's words in an empty figurative exposition saying this is not my Substantial Body I might rightly deduce following the same interpretation then the word was not substantially made Flesh and so deny the Mystery of the Incarnation I and my Father are not substantially one and so prosess Arianism These three are not substantially one and so dividing the Divine Nature constitute many Gods. Can such a figurative Explanation be thought a sincere part of the True Religion which undermines and utterly destroys the whole Fabrick of Christianity And ought not my own Motive in the most considerable Mysteries of Christianity contained in Scripture be to me the same in the determination of the true Sense of This is my Body SIXTH MOTIVE The true sense of our Saviour's words may be gathered from the Doctrin which the Learned and Ancient Fathers maintain'd against incroaching Heresie What if I should now advance that the Successors of the Apostles upbraided Heretics for denying the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ that Flesh which suffered for us upon the Cross would you not look upon it as an invincible undertaking and yet the glorious Martyr St. Ignatius elected Bishop of Antiochia thirty eight years after our Saviour's Passion plainly delivers They certain Heretics whose Names he thought convenient not to mention do not receive Eucharists or Sacrifices because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which Flesh suffered for our sins and which the Father raised again by his benignity Nor is it enough to say these Heretics could not admit the Eucharist to be a Figure because they deny'd that Christ had true Flesh This perchance is true But it is not here the sense of the Martyr who says expresly that they reject Eucharists because they do
not confess that the Eucharist is that Flesh which suffered for our sins The Flesh which suffered for us and rose again was it a Figure or was it true Flesh If I should affirm that the Language of the Second Century spoke after the same manner and told us that they were taught the Eucharist was not common Bread but was the Flesh of our Saviour made Man and Jesus incarnate would you not reply it was a Roman Invention And yet St. Justin the Martyr leaves this convincing Testimony We do not receive these things as common Bread or common Drink But as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so are we taught that this Food by which chang'd by digestion in our Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Flesh and Blood are nourish'd Eucharistated or transformed by the prayer of this Divine Word is the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnate Jesus If for all this you should reply that the Eucharistic Food is onely figuratively the Flesh and Blood of Christ then might the Reader likewise aver Christ being incarnate had onely figuratively both Flesh and Blood. For 't is more to say the blessed Bread is the Flesh and Blood of Incarnate Jesus because this Speech implies a substantial change than to say Jesus being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood because this Speech can signifie no more than a substantial Union And to say less in either is to diminish and change the Martyr's Sense If I should instance the Third Age was a faithful Imitator of the precedent so dividing between the Divine Mystery and the Grace of the Mystery that the Body of Man received the Body and Blood of Christ and the Soul was replenished with the Grace of Faith or effect of the Sacrament would you not be surprized at the acknowledgment of what was given in Communion And yet Tertullian furnishes us with a sufficient manifestation of this Truth Saying Our Flesh is sed with the Body and Blood of Christ that our Soul may be filled with God. Again These words Our Flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be deluded in an eating by Faith because the Body of Man is incapable of an act of Faith. If I should continue the Fathers of the Fourth Century when the Church was beautified and enriched with an innumerable Offspring of Pious and Learned Children If I should alledge how these worthy Champions of Christian Purity forbid Posterity to judge of the Sacrament by Tast and taught them the Body was given them under the Species of Bread and as Christ changed Water into Wine so did he Wine into his own Blood would you not swear this Language was unknown in those times And yet both the Greek and Latin Church conspire in this Doctrin Hearken to that Grecian Prelate St. Cyril of Jerusalem and acknowledge the plain truth of these words Do not judge the thing by Tast but by Faith. Under the species of Bread is given to thee the Body and under the species of Wine is given to thee the Blood. Christ formerly changed Water into Wine and is he not to be believed changing Wine into his Blood Nor are these words of the Learned Latin Bishop Gaudentius of less force Jesus giving to his Disciples Bread and Wine said this is my Body Let us believe it is what he said Truth is incapable of Error The Creator of all Nature and Lord who produces Bread from the Earth made again of this Bread because he can and promised his proper Body and because he did make Wine of Water of Wine he makes his Blood. I know there are several Expressions and Comparisons in the Fathers which only declare a spiritual change effected in the worthy Receiver But do not the foregoing Authorities prove something more a change not in the Receiver but in the thing received and this can be no less than a substantial one For when Catholics argue that as Christ changed Water into Wine so does he Bread into his Body Protestants readily deny the sequel because this would be to profess Transubstantiation If this reasoning of Catholics include a substantial change of the Bread into Christ's Body as you grant how comes it to pass that the very same words and very same reason in the Father's Writings must have quite another interpretation If the Fathers had design'd to have writ for Transubstantiation they could but have said what they do and you might still explicate them in a spiritual sense or wrested interpretation If I should urge on that I rightly profess the consecrated Bread transfigur'd and transelemented into the Body of Christ would you not exclaim these are as hard and mishapen words as that of Transubstantiation and yet many Fathers of this fourth Age after Christ use the same Expressions Witness this Language of St. Ambrose As often as we receive the Sacraments which by the Mystery of Prayer are transfigurated into Flesh and Blood witness this Speech of St. Gregory Nyssene I properly believe the Bread sanctified by the word of God to be changed into the Body of God the Word And this is effected the nature of what appears being transelemented by vertue of benediction into the Body of the word Christ I close up this Motive with the decision of the Synod in Egypt celebrated before the second Oecumenical Council to both which presided St. Cyril of Alexandria These Fathers composing a Creed inserted these words in the end of their Introduction This is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church in which the East and West agree Then immmediatly follows their Creed divided into many Articles What if their Seventh Article should decree the Flesh received in the Sacrament to be the very Flesh of Christ which made one Person and two Natures in one Son and not two Sons one of God Divine and another of the Blessed Virgin Human as Nestorius Heretically taught you could require nothing more for Transubstantiation And yet these are their words We do not receive in the Sacrament our Saviour's Flesh as common Flesh God forbid Nor again as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man or associated to the Word by unity of Dignity but as the true vivificative and proper Flesh of the Word himself truly the Flesh of him who for our sake was made and called the Son of Man. The Council admitting with Nestorius what was received to be true Flesh defines against the Heretic who pretended our Saviour as he was the Son of the Virgin Mary had not only a Nature but likewise a Human Person and so constituted two Persons in Christ that we do not receive this as common Flesh or the Flesh of an ordinary Person Secondly The Council adds Nor as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man or associated to the Word by the unity of Dignity which excluded that accidental Union by which the Nestorians joyned together two Persons that
of the Son of God and that of the Son of Man in one Christ Thirdly The Council declares they receive it as the all-vivificating and proper Flesh of the Word that Word who was made and called Man professing one Person in Christ to whom this Human Nature properly belonged Now if all this were to be expounded of a Figure what wresting would there be of this Article And how could the Council conclude the proper Flesh of Christ was that of the Divine Word one Person and two Natures and speak of neither but of a pure Figure The Sacrament might have been a Figure of the Passion and yet two distinct Persons admitted in Christ SEVENTH MOTIVE The Council of Trent declares that because Jesus Christ our Redeemer truly said that 't was his own Body which under the appearance of Bread he offered and gave to his Disciples the Church of God was alwaies perswaded that this wonderful change was operated by the conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's precious Body and therefore renews the Canon of Transubstantiation And You know that as our Saviour commanded his Apostles to preach the Gospel so did he oblige the People to receive the promulgated Word and be obedient to their Pastors The obligation of this obedience will last to the end of the world and consequently in the mean time will be still due to the true Successors of the Apostles with whom Christ had promised to remain till the consummation of the World. You cannot deny but the Romish Church has true succession from Christ and his Apostles and we are sure you have left this Society of true Successors Obedience therefore to the true Successors of the Apostles who have defined this Catholic verity obliges me in the last instance to believe this is my Body can import no less than the sense of Transubstantiation I think a slight consideration of the foregoing motives easily shews Catholics pretend not as you would have them that if Transubstantiation can be it must be either because there are no Figures in Scripture or because a Sacrament admits of no Figures You seem to be perswaded of this your self turning these imaginarie Reasons against the Roman Catholic Assertion But alass they are no more against than they were for Transubstantiation For our Saviour's words may be literally true and yet many Figures admitted in Scripture There may be given many Spiritual interpretations of the sacred Text and yet this passage the Word was made Flest litterally signifie that the second Person of the Blessed Trinity was substantially Man. There are questionless in the old and new Testament many Figures and neither lookt upon as a meer Figure There may be then many Figures in Holy Writ and this is my Body not at all be concerned in these figurative interpretations Nor is your second reason more efficacious than the former For these words this is my Body literally received are not at all prejudiced by an outward sign or Figure of a Sacrament The very notion of a Sacrament in St. Austin's opinion shews part and hides the remainder What appears in the Sacrament of the Altar is a sign an accidental shape or resemblance and this is the object of Sense What is understood and believed can be no less than what our Blessed Saviour warrants us of his own Body How then is the substance of the Elements not changed because the Eucharist is a Sacrament and a Sacrament is a Sign A Man is an Image of God yet a Substance The Divine Son is a Figure of his Father's Substance and who can wrest from him the same Substance with his Eternal Father 'T is true it was an Arian Error the Son 's an Image therefore not God. Is your Illation stronger the Eucharist is a Sacrament or Sign therefore it is not the Substance This Error ought to correct yours Now this is my Body may be taken I think in the sense of Transubstantiation and the Eucharist remain a Sacramental Sign or resemblance Had you foreseen this Answer I presume you woul have smothered this instance viz. When he gave the Cup he said this Cup is the New Testament in my Blood where first the Cup is put for the Wine and if any thing be changed it must be the Cup. The speedy quitting of the contested Proposition this is my Body is a ready confession that you were unable to discover therein couch'd any Figurative exposition and so hasten to busie your Reader with a Metonymy contain'd in the word Cup put for Wine Had this been so how easily could sense and reason have unfolded what appeared difficult But why do I say difficult It is our common Language to ask for a Cup or Glass when we mean Drink Nor was the Phrase amongst the Jews otherwise This is cleared from the Triple repetition of the same Phrase in S. Paul to the Corinthians Drink this Cup. If this then was the proper speech and our Saviour did not speak improperly who could be so remote from Sense to guess the Cup or Chalice was to be drunk Would you not think that person extravagant who hearing you ask in a place where People were drinking Wine for a Glass should apprehend you would swallow down the Glass and so the Vessel be turn'd into your Substance Which must be true if it be false that Sense and Reason without the support of some father assistance could be deceived in so facile and usual an expression of a Cup or Glass put for Wine If then the Holy Ghost had used in Scripture the Cup for Wine I know not who could have refused such a Figure And because I find no Metonymy no Figure couch'd in this is my Body I exclude all Figurative insinuations I said if the Holy Ghost had put the Cup for Wine Wine you say the Divine Spirit writes Blood and so the Cup is metonymically put for the contained Drink in the Chalice or Blood. For what we read in St. Luke This Cup the New Testament in my Blood is equivalent to this Blood and so the Cup is Blood. If you suspect the supposal harken how St. Matthew Phrases it This is my Blood of the New Testament which is repeated by St. Mark and who dare contradict two Divine Testimonies If the Spirit of God was careful to plain so small a Nicety in so familiar a Phrase is it credible that he would have omitted the most important in the World which he has done if this is my Body be but a Figure of his Body since the Scripture discovers nothing to diminish the reality of Christ's true Body What you add if any thing be chang'd it is the Cup into the Covenant is very strange Till you make this good by Reason or evince it from Scripture give me leave not to credit your Authority And if you think the word Testament in this passage this Cup or Blood is the New Testament excludes real Blood
St. Paul proves quite the contrary demonstrating if there be a Testament there must be true Blood and so concludes Whereupon neither the first Testament was dedicated without Blood and without sheding of Blood is no remission Lastly You urge besides his Blood which is said to be shed which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first Celebration of this Sacrament We do not dispute with you the actual effusion of Christ's natural Blood which was a sanguinary Sacrifice But can you deny that in those words you alledge from St. Luke where Christ's Blood is said to be shed is contained a mystical Sacrifice St. Austin calls this the Oblation of Christ's Body on the Altar St. Cyprian four times in the same Epistle the Dominical Sacrifice St. Gregorie Nazianzen the unbloody Sacrifice Two Sacrifices we acknowledge with the holy Fathers different in manner not distinct in substance The same Blood spilt naturally once upon the Cross and mystically offered daily on the Altar Because the same Caracteristical mark of true Blood is attributed to both the Sacrifices Viz. the remission of Sins by effusion of Blood. Hence St. Matthew speaking of Christ's Blood in the Sacrament says that it is shed for many for remission of sins And St. Paul in the foregoing lines without sheding of Blood is no remission Article II. Examen of your Second Proof YOU are willing to stand in the second instance to the plain concession of many learned Roman Catholic Writers concerning the necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation And because you begin with the concession of the acute Schoolman let us examin what was the opinion of Scotus Scotus distinguishing two sorts or Classes of People the worthy and unworthy Receivers thus delivers himself It is undoubtedly to be held the Good not only Sacramentally but also Spiritually receive the Bad only Sacramentally that is subjoyns Scotus under the visible species the Flesh of Christ that Flesh which was born of the Virgin Mary they do not mystically receive the benefit of the Sacrament This he proves from St. Gregorie the Great 's determination the true Flesh and true Body of Christ is received by Sinners and unworthy Communicants in essence not in benefit Then Scotus quotes St. Austin for the same evidence and concludes with the testimony of St. Paul to the same purpose This acute Schoolman asking afterwards q. 3. whether the Bread be changed into the Body of Christ Answers num 13. that it is changed into the Body of Christ 'T is true he brings in one objecting n. 4. n. 7. that our Saviour's Words may receive a more facile Sense than that of Transubstantiation And Scotus replies the more difficile sense is not to be admitted if it be not true but if it be true and can be proved evidently to be so then the more difficile ought to be chosen and this is the case of the present Article He pushes on the resumpt But why did the Church prefer the more difficile sense when she might have chosen a more facile in appearance I answer says Scotus the Scriptures are expounded by the same Spirit by which they were dictated and 't is to be supposed the Catholic Church expounded them by the same Spirit by which truth is delivered taught by the Spirit of truth for it was not in the power of the Church to make that true but in the power of God the institutor Now what is this to your purpose For if you take the concession of Scotus you must profess both the real Presence and Transubstantiation And this necessarily deduc'd from Scripture Because the Scripture efficaciously moved the Church to declare for the same Doctrin according to Scotus's words it was not in the power of the Church to make that true or not true The Church then necessarily followed Scriptural evidence And what was necessarily compulsive to the Church was not otherwise to Scotus who tacitly intimated the cogent necessity of Scriptures Authority for the real change of the substance of Bread into the Body of Christ instancing it was determined by the Church for Transubstantiation Bellarmin was of Opinion that according to the two literal senses of this is my Body read in the acute School-man the sole evidence of Scripture could not in Scotus's mind abstracting from the declaration and universal practice of the Church evidently compel the admittance of Transubstantiation Bellarmin was severe enough upon Scotus Yet he diminished much this severity saying the acute Schoolman added because the Catholic Church has declared in a general Council the true meaning of Scripture Transubstantiation may manifestly be proved from Scripture so declared But of what mind Scotus was the foregoing Page will sufficiently remind the unprejudic'd Reader Nor can you conclude Bellarmin himself granted evidence of Scripture was wanting for the Roman Cause because he said Scotus's assertion was not altogether improbable In like manner you may argue against the strongest Demonstration in nature You may frankly concede an acute Objection not altogether improbable and notwithstanding this Concession stick fast to the former Evidence of your Demonstration This is Bellarmin's case as the following words out of the same place testifie For although adds Bellarmin Scripture which we have heretofore alledged may seem so clear to us that it can compel a moderate man ther 's evidence of Scripture for Transubstantiation and Bellarmin's opinion Yet the acuteness of bright understandings leaves some doubt This is what is not altogether improbable But we ought to reflect these words of Bellarmin not altogether Improbable are grounded upon a meer supposal of two literal Senses which touches not our Controversie For Bellarmin plainly denies a figurative Exposition probable of our Saviours words speaking of things as they are instituted For thus he argues These words this is my Body necessarily infer either the true change of Bread as Catholics believe or a metaphorical mutation as Calvinists contend This Calvinistical Sense he had already declared as improbable saying we will generally demonstrate that 't is not probable our Saviour would figuratively speak And for the Lutherans Error holding both substance of Bread and the Body together in the Sacrament he says it shares not in the sense of our Saviour's words Thus the true change of Bread into the Body of Christ naturally follows according to Bellarmin from the plain and evident Text of Scripture Durandus divides the substance of Bread into Matter and Form. Then adds the Bread is converted by conseration into the Body of our Lord and the Form perishing the Matter is animated with the Soul of Christ A strange manner of Explication But what doth this avail your cause For if the Form of Bread perishes in Durandus's explication and the Matter be animated with the Soul of Christ the remaining Accidents can neither claim Matter nor Form of Bread and so
Sinners upon Earth in the likeness of Man deny'd that he was truly Man. 'T is true many Dissenters from the Catholic Church and Hereticks grounding themselves on this Scriptural Passage Christ appeared in the likeness of Man eagerly taught that he was a Phantasm or Appearance not a natural Man composed of Flesh and Bone. And you their Faithful Imitator gloss after the same manner not upon Scripture but upon a single Passage of one Father and this too borrowed from Gratian. But with how little reason you gloss after this manner these following Passages of S. Austin taken out of the same Gratian will farther demonstrate The First is part of the Canon wherein your Objection is contained These are his Words What exteriorly appears in the Sacrament is a Figure the Truth is the Body and Blood of Christ made of the Substance of Bread and Wine The Second Passage is We faithfully confess it is before Consecration Bread and Wine which Nature made but after Consecration the Flesh and Blood of Christ which Benediction consecrated The Third is the meaning of that Passage of our Saviour The Bread which I will give in the 6th of St. John which words determine in St. Austin's mind How Christ is Bread not only as he is the Word which gives all things life but also according to the Flesh assumed for the life of the World. Is this not real Flesh Paragraph VII YOU mention but one more Testimony but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered It is in his Treatise de Doctrina Christiana where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or commanding us to do good it is not figurative if the contrary it is figurative for example except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you this seems to command a heinous Crime therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord. If I should deny that St. Austin speaks here of receiving the Sacrament you would be puzled to find out a warrant for your famous Assertion For many Learned Writers judiciously remark that these words except ye eat of my Flesh in Saint Austin's Sense may be thus explicated except ye eat it by Faith by Piety by Good Works which is a Spiritual Communion out of the Sacrament of the Passion of our Lord. And if this be true as it is more than probably so St. Austin says here what all Catholics profess For we all say we may communicate spiritually of the Passion of Christ by Faith believing in Jesus when we receive not the Sacrament and yet we believe in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But if you will still keep this Holy Father whose Learning has always been the Admiration of Mankind out of his wits to use your Phrase a slight reflection supposing he speaks here of Sacramental Communion will help him to return to himself and reconcile him to the Catholic Affirmation I think one of a mean Capacity can distinguish the manner of eating and the thing eaten Which if true St. Austin may literally understand the thing eaten in the Sacrament to be the true Flesh of Christ God and Man and yet at the same instant hold that the manner of eating this Flesh to which this Passage except ye eat my Flesh has referenee is Spiritual For although the true Body be taken in the shape of Bread into the Mouth and let down into the Stomack yet it is not ground with the Teeth or separated in pieces We are taught after a Spiritual manner to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. Lissen to the Voice of God and you 'l hear the Gospel mention eating a Man take eat this is my Body The manner is Spiritual for the Body is given in the shape of Bread and in this Sense St. Austin calls these words except ye eat my Flesh a figurative Speech The Substance or the thing eaten is not here mentioned by the Saint But it is the true Body of Christ as the same Saint assures us else-where in these Lines We believe in the Sacrament with faithful heart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man Christ Jesus giving us his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drank although it appear more horrible to eat than to kill Human Flesh to drink than to spill Human Blood. Every word almost instances a new Argument for the truth of the Flesh This oral receiving with mouth God and Man This horror of eating and drinking Flesh and Blood this Antithesis between eating and killing drinking and spilling terminated to the same substance leaves not the least scruple to doubt that the thing eaten is real Flesh and Blood. And pray what horror would there be to eat an Image of Flesh or what Language speaks of killing the Figure of a Man The same Saint in his Exposition on the 33d Psalm hath this Passage He 's truly our Lord who truly gave us his Body to eat in which he so much suffered Elsewhere he says the Faithful receive into their mouth that Blood which redeemed them And in his 27th Treatise on St. John speaking of St. Peter's Confession I find this remarkable Sentence You are Christ the Son of the living God and what you give in your Flesh and Blood is nothing else but your own self Now you must acknowledge the way I have prescribed or find some other expedient to reconcile St. Austin's Wit with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or all the World will imagine you put your own to a desperate adventure Article VII YOU mention two Testimonies out of Theodoretus's Dialogues between a Catholic under the name of Orthodoxus and a Heretic under the name of Eranistes who maintained with the Eutichians that the Humanity of Christ after the Ascension was changed into the Divinity I 'll examine each apart Paragraph I. The Dispute of Orthodoxus and Eranistes in the First Dialogue ORthodoxus undertakes to shew that the Humanity of Christ alwaies remain'd This he proves because the Humanity was a Vail or Garment to the Divinity as we read in Genesis where Jacob prophecy'd of the Messias He washed his Garment in Wine and his Cloaths in the Blood of the Grape Eranistes replys this is understood literally of his proper Habit with which he was cloathed upon Earth Orthodoxus resumes that Jesus called himself the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and the Blood of our Saviour is called the Blood of the Vine And if our Saviour be called the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and from the side of our Saviour ran Fountains of Blood on the rest of his Body The Prophet rightly foretold that He washed his Robe in Wine and his Cloths
in the Blood of the Grape Again speaking to Eranistes he pursues with another Simile Jesus called his Body Bread and his Flesh Wheat But in the institution of the Sacrament he called Bread his Body and Wine his Blood Though naturally the Body is called the Body and Blood is called Blood but our Saviour changing the Names gave to his Body the Name of Symbol and to the Symbol or Sign the Name of his Body Eranistes urges to know the cause of this change of Names Orthodoxus answers Nothing more easie to the Faithful For he would have those who partake of the Divine Mysteries not to attend to the nature of things which are seen but by the change of Names to believe the change which is made by Grace for he who called that which by nature is a Body Wheat and Bread and again called himself the Vine he honoured the Symbol with the name of his Body and Blood not changing nature but adding Grace to nature This is a full view of the matter in debate We ought to reflect that as Theodoretus compares here Scriptural passages wherein they resemble one another and consequently acknowledges the Similitude of the already mention'd Expressions So also was he not ignorant of their differences And therefore he said Jesus changed the Names that by their change the Faithful might believe that alteration which Grace effected The change of names is acknowledged to proceed from a change made in the Sacrament For he obliges the Faithful to believe a change which is made not in the nature of things which are seen for the natural Signs or outward appearances remain it must be then in some inward thing not seen or Substance of the Symbol effected by Grace or the Word of God. This in another place he professes in these Words Christ gave his pretious Body not only to the Eleven Apostles but also to the Traytor Judas This cannot be properly Grace added to Nature for Judas received his own condemnation It must be then the Body of Christ made by Grace of the Substance of Bread and added to the Nature or remaining appearance of the Signs which was given to the Traytor Paragraph II. Upon the continuation of the same Discourse in the Second Dialogue ORthod What are those Symbols which the Priest offers to God Eranist They are Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Orthod Of the true Body Eranist Of the true Body Orthod Very right Eranist Very well Orthod If these Divine Mysteries represent the true Body the true Body of Christ is not changed into the Divinity Eranistes perceiving himself caught cunningly retorts the Argument in the like manner How do you call these Symbols after consecration Orthod The Body and Blood of Christ Eranist Do you believe you receive the Body and Blood of Christ Orthod I do believe Eranist Therefore as the Symbols of our Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation are changed and become another thing so the Body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the Divine Substance If Orthodoxus had not believed that the Symbols were truly changed in Substance after consecration how could Eranistes have deduced the change of the Human Nature into the Divine Substance He could not argue this out of his own principle For admitting no Body of Christ in Heaven how could he pretend a real Body of Christ in the Sacrament whence the Protestant Centuriators say Theodoretus dangerously affirms that the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are changed and become another thing Orthodoxus answers you are caught in your own net because the Mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance and may be seen and handled even as before As Bread is properly said to have Substance and Nature which are neither seen nor handled so likewise the Accidents of Bread may be said though not so commonly to have their own Nature and Substance which may be seen and handled Whence that of St. Austin What is not a Substance is nothing at all 'T is in this sense Orthodoxus holds the substance of the Symbols remains And lest we should doubt what this substance is he tells us 't is Figure and Appearance Nor is this a constrained interpretation For what more usual when we have uttered some word either harsh in expression or difficult to be understood than forthwith to add another softer in Language and more obvious to the Hearer Thus Theodoretus saying They remain in their former substance adds that is they remain in their former Figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before Nor are these latter Expressions referable to Substance strictly taken for the inward thing because this properly is neither seen nor handled Now if you ask what these Symbols are interiorly Theodoretus confesses they are what they were made Christ's Body And they are believed and adored as being those very things which they are believed Which Words if the Bread be not substantially changed into Christ's Body teach plain Idolatry Nor could Orthodoxus say the interiour Substance of the Symbols was not changed in his own Opinion for this he had already granted in these Words They are changed and become after consecration another thing Orthodoxus pretends indeed that he caught his Adversary in his own Net. But this was not because Eranistes believed the Substance of the Symbols was not changed into Christ's Body for he thought Christ's Body was no where extant How then was he caught in his own Net He was caught in his own Net because these Mystical Symbols were not changed in appearance for after consecration they may be seen and handled and they were Symbols still of Christ's true Body which Eranistes had formerly granted and therefore there was a true Body of Christ and so the Body of Christ was not changed into the Divinity as Orthodoxus had argued Thus Eranistes was caught in his own Net. Nor ought Theodoretus to be censured for Singularity in giving the Name of Nature and Substance to accidental Beings For St. Hilary gives the same to Proprieties Saying That the Flames in the Babilonian Furnace lost their Nature though the Substance of the Fire remained Innocent the Third that Venerable Pope and Father of the Church under whom was defined the Doctrin of Transubstantiation frankly concedes the Natural Proprieties of Bread remain ut paneitas And Cardinal Pole another great Vindicator of the same Tenet says Though there be only Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament notwithstanding the Nature of the Wine may be tasted I would have you likewise argue that these Authors are against Transubstantiation Article VIII Upon Gelasius the Pope THESE Words of Gelasius The Substance of Bread and Wine doth not cease to be are already satisfied by what I