Article 1. Examen of your First Proof.

I Know not upon what account you say, that if our Saviours words, can be taken in the Sense of the Roman Catholic As­sertion, this must be; either because, there are no Figures in Scri­pture; or because, a Sacrament admits of no Figure. Had any of our Authors made use of such Reasons, or inclined the least this way, you would not have omitted such Authority. But if you Write what you have not Read, for the pretended ground of Transubstantiation; I'm sure you have not Writ what you have Read, for the real understanding thereof. I shall remind you of some few Motives, which induce Roman Catholics to believe our Saviours words can import no less than the verity of Transubstantiation.

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 Indubitanter tenendum est à bo­nis sumi, non modo Sacramentaliter, sed & Spiritualiter. Amalts verò tantùm Sacramentaliter, id est, sub Sacramento, scilicet, sub visibili specie, Christi carnem de Virgine sumptam & Sanguinem pro nobis fusum sumi: sed non mysticam, quae tantùm bonorum est. Scor. l. 4. d. 9. q. 1. B. 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; [Page 21] 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 St. Greg. Mag. apud. Scot. Est quidem indignè sumentibus vera Christi caro, & verus Sanguis, sed essentiâ, non salubri efficaciâ. 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 Convertitur in Corpus Christ. the Bread be changed into the Body of Christ: Answers, (num. 13.) that it is changed into the Body of Christ.

'Tis 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 N. 15. Non est­aliquis articu­lus arctandus ad intellectum difficilem, nisi ille intellectus sit verus; sed si verus est, & probatur evidenter esse verum, oportet secundùm illum in­tellectum tenere Articulum—Sic autem supponitur de intellectu hujus Articuli. 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 Ab eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scrip­turae, à quo conditae sunt. Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit, facere il­lud verum vel non verum, sed Dei instituentis, sed illum à Deo tradi­tum Ecclesia explicavit, directa in hoc, ut creditur Spiritu veritatis, l. 4. d. 11. q. 3. n. 15. by the same Spirit, by which they were dictated; and 'tis 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 [Page 22] 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, Bellarminus, l. 3. c. 23. Tertio addit (scil. Scotus) quia Ecclesia Catholica in generali concilio Scrip­turam declaravit, ex Scriptura sic declarata, manifeste probari Tran­substantiationem. 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 Etiamsi Scriptura, quam nos supra adduximus, videtur nobis tam clara, ut possit urgere hominem non proter­vum; tamen an it a sit, meritò du­bitari potest, cum homines acutissi­mi, qualis Scotus, contrarium sen­tiant. Lib. 3. c. 23. de Euch. 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; L. 3. c. 19. Haec verba necessariò inferunt, aut veram mutationem panis, ut volunt Catholici, aut mu­tationem Metaphoricam, ut volunt Calvinistae. or a metaphorical mutation, as Calvinists con­tend. [Page 23] This Calvinistical Sense he had already, declared as improbable, saying, we will gene­rally demonstrate that 'tis not probable our Saviour L. 1. c. 9. In universim demon­strabimus, non esse probabile, Do­minum figura te loqui voluisse. would figuratively speak. And for the Lutherans Error holding both substance of Bread and the Body together in the Sacrament, he says it L. 3. c. 19. Nullo modo Luthera­norum Sententiam admittunt. 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. Duran. 4 d. 11. q. 3. 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 the whole Substance of Bread is wanting.

But Durandus calls your Sentiment, holding Bread remains De Corp. & Sang. Domini. Profanae novi­tatis dogma. after Consecration, the Doctrin of profane Novelty.

Suarez and Vasquez, treat Durandus, as one Divine doth a­nothers Opinion. But you might have well omitted their names, for one that is moderately learn'd in Divinity, knows how copiously they both shew from Scripture and Fathers, the Roman Catholic Doctrin.

Occham. You have not faithfully delivered this Divine's Au­thority, In. 4. Sent. q. 6. Dico quod in Altari est vere. Transubstan­tiatio. who thus answers to the second Query. I say that in the Sacrament is true Transubstantiation.

Then he delivers four manners of understanding this Tran­substantiation. 1. That the Bread may remain with the Body. 2. That the Substance of the Bread may suddenly be removed away. 3. That it may return to Matter the common subject of all, or receive some other Form. 4. That it may be reduced to nothing. He admits all four as possible. The first man­ner he prefers in these words, which are your Objection, The first manner may be held, because Occham. Ibidem. Primus Me­dus potest teneri, quia non repug­nat rationi, nec alicui Authoritati. Bibliae, & est rationabilior, & fa­cilior ad tenendum inter omnes mo­dos——Quia tamen determinatio Ecclesiae in contrarium existit, sicut patet extra de summ. Trin. de Fid. it is neither repugnant to Reason, nor to Scripture, and is more reasonable, and easier than the other [Page 24] (three) manners. These are Scholastic Opinions. And therefore this Divine leaving them, ad­heres to the true sense of Transubstantiation in these following words; Yet because we find ex­tant the Churches determination contrary to this ex­position, and all Doctors universally hold that the Et communiter omnes Doctores ten nt quod ibi non remanet sub­stantia panis, ideo etiam teneo quod non remanet ibi substantia panis, sed illa species, & quod illi coëxistat Corpus Christi. substance of Bread remains not there, (in the Sa­crament;) Therefore I also hold, that the sub­stance of Bread remains not, but the species of Bread, and with this outward shape of Bread coexistent the Body of Christ. Will you acknowledge what this Divine holds and professes?

Gabriel Biel. You have corrupted Biel. Biel in Canon Missae, Lect. 40. Quamvis expresse tradatur in Scrip­tura quod Christi Corpus sub specie­bus panis continetur, tamen quomo­do ibi sit Christi Corpus, an per conversionem alicujus in ipsum, aut sine conversione incipiat esse Corpus Christi cum pane, manentibus sub­stantia & accidentia panis, non in­venitur expressum in Canone Bibliae. These are his words; Although it be expresly deli­vered in Scripture that the Body of Christ is truly contain'd under the species of Bread, yet we find not express in the Canon of the Scripture, how the Bo­dy of Christ is there, whether by conversion of some thing into himself, or whether without conversion, the Body begins to be with the Bread, the substance and accidents of Bread remaining.

This Author is so far from speaking, what you force him to say, as to any thing expressed in Scripture, a man may believe that the substance of Bread and Wine doth remain after consecration; that he proves we ought to believe the contrary sense contained in Scrip­ture. And this upon two accounts.

1. Although the manner of Christ's existence in the Sacra­ment, be not in this Divine's opinion, evidently couch'd, yet it is sufficiently particularized, in the Canon of the Scripture. For if this which was Bread, is Christ's Body, according to our Savi­our's words this is my Body, and Christ's true Body be there ex­presly delivered in Scripture, as Biel affirms, it necessarily fol­ows, that the Substance of Bread is changed. For how can this (which was Bread) be Christ's true Body, and not lose its own substance?

2. He expounds the Scripture after this same manner from the Lateran Council, St. Austin, St. Ambrose, and then concludes, From these and many other Ibidem. Ex his & aliis plurimis Authoritatibus Sanctorum habetur, quod Corpus Christi est in Sacra­mento, per Transubstantiationem sub­stantiae panis & vini in Corpus & Sanguinem Christi. authorities of Saints, 'tis held that the Body of Christ is in the Sacrament by Transubstantiation of [Page 25] the substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. Does this favour the Prote­stants?

You named, but expressed not Melchior Mel. Canus de focis Com. l. 12. c. 13. Canus's authority, who says, the Body and Blood of Christ was offered in the Sacrifice, and Extat apud Lucam Scriptum a­pertissimum Testimonium ad hujus rei Probationem. his proof is the evident Testimony of St. Luke. This I think prejudices us not in the least.

Petrus Ab Alliaco. You have misrepresented Ab Alliaco, who disputing upon meer possibilities, proposes (among others) two Questions. First, Whether it is not possible that the Body of Christ may remain united to the substance of Bread in the Sa­crament. Secondly, Whether the substance of Bread may not be suddenly removed away by divine power, the accidents only remaining with Christ's Body. This Divine thinks nei­ther impossible, and prefers the first as more rational and con­formable to Scriptures. These are his words. 'Tis possible the Body of Christ may assume the sub­stance Petrus ab Al. 4. Sent. q. 6. Pos­sibile est Corpus Christi assumere sub­stantiam panis, nec repugnat ratio­ni, nec authoritati Bibliae; imò est facilior ad-intelligendam, & ratio­nabilior, quàm ille modus, qui ponit quod substantia deserat accidentia. of Bread, and this manner is not repugnant to reason, or to the authority of Scripture; it is more easie and more rational than that manner, which pretends the substance of Bread leaves the accidents. Now for the second. It is not impossible to God, that the substance of Bread may be suddenly elsewhere Non est impossibile Deo, quod sub­stantia panis subitò sit alibi, rema­nentibus speciebus in [...]odem loco, & eis coexistere Corpus Christi. Ille tamen modus non esset ita rationa­bilis, sicut prius. convey'd, the species remaining in the place coex­istent to the Body of Christ; this manner would not be so rational as the first. All this is upon pos­sibilities.

But not to enlarge in Scholastic Opinions, when matters of Faith are debated, Cannot I dispute of what is possible, but you will necessarily deduce I deny the being of what is actu­ally present? If I should say, 'tis possible God may create another World, and People it with another Generation of Creatures; can you deduce from this, that there is no neces­sity of admitting any Men alive at this present in the whole Universe?

Cajetan, 'Tis true writ, the Scripture did not evidently en­force the Roman Catholic Tenet. Great Wits speak some­times Cajet. in 4. d. 29. a. 2. In Coena Do­mini. without consideration. Yet the Good Cardinal retracted afterwards his Error in these words. We can prove Christ's real [Page 26] presence from the words of the Gospel. And thus in some manner amended, as Soto remarks, what was before amiss.

You instance the words you object out of Cajetan, in the Ro­man Edition, are expunged by order of Pope Pius V. I Answer, a worthy remark to demonstrate the vigilancy of the Roman See was not wanting to blot out Innovation in its very first rise and appearance.

Bishop Fisher, that glorious Martyr of the Church of Rome, Cont. cap. Baby. c. 10. N. 2. confesseth, we cannot prove from the bare words of Scripture, that Priests consecrate the true Body and Blood of Christ.

I shall not dispute whether this concern our present Contro­versie or not; but I'le beg you'll take the following Explication of the Pious Bishop; that is, continues the holy Martyr in the same place, not because this thing is now doubt­ful, Non quod res haec jam ambigua sit, sed quod ejus certitudo, non tàm habeatur ex Evangelii verbis, quàm Patrum Interpretatione, simul & usu tanti temporis, quem illi poste­ris reliquerunt. but because the certainty of this Doctrin cannot be gathered so strongly from the bare words of the Gospel, as from the Father's Interpretation, toge­ther with the continued practice of so long a time sur­viving in succeeding Posterity.

The blessed Bishop gives us this reason, why he provoked to the Fathers, lest any one should (says he) pertinaciously adhere to the pure words of Scripture, despising Fathers Authorities, as Luther did.

If this will not suffice, I'le translate, when you require it, the Cap. 4. de cap. Babyl. Adv. Oecolamp. Fourth Chapter of this same Book, wherein Bishop Fisher proves the Bread changed into Christ's Body from the three E­vangelists. And I'le rank your Objections collected from Lu­ther's Instances, and Oecolampadius's Objections on one Page, and on the opposite place Bishop Fisher's Solutions to them both in vindication of the Roman Catholic Assertion.

I finish this Scholastic Disceptation with this Querie, Whether you would not think it weakness in me disputing for Transub­stantiation, to use in my own defence these words of yours, which somewhat favour my undertaking. I readily acknow­ledge Page 11. the Fathers do, and that with great reason, very much magnify, and frequently speak of a great Sacramental Change made by the Divine Benediction. If from hence I should vigorously assert, you gran­ted the Fathers were for the Substantial Change, because since you admit a wonderful Change made by the Divine Benedicti­on, and that the Species remain unaltered, the Change must be [Page 27] acknowledged in the Substance of Bread and Wine; would you not condemn this weakness, and appeal to the other parts of your Treatise to manifest this Impossibility? And yet all these Schoolmen actually write (in those very Places you mention) a­gainst the Sectarists, or Roman Opposers. And almost every one of them, produce from Scripture and Fathers, more Rea­sons for, than you have done Objections against Transubstanti­ation. I appeal to your own Judgment conscious of this Truth. And you know, that if you do follow their Writings, and imi­tate the Religion, they professed and died in, you must declare yo [...]self a Member of the Roman Catholic Church.

Article I. Whether Parables exclude the sense of Transubstantiation.

'TIS a Maxim among Divines, No Efficacious Argument can be drawn from Parables. This Calvin acknow­ledges. Ins. Cal. 4. c. 17. p. 21. And St. Austin goes farther, admo­nishing the Donatists, n'er to endeavour an e­stablishment St. Aug. cont. Petilian. 16. Ne stabilire posse putent ulla dogmata iis qui solum vel obscure, vel ambiguè vel figuratê dicuntur in Scripturis. of Dogm's from Scriptural Passa­ges, which are obscure, or ambiguous, or figurative: which if true, the sense of Transubstantiation, will not in the least be prejudic'd, by your Objections from Parables.

You first object this Parable of Christ. I am the Door. I an­swer John 10. the 7th verse explicates. I am the Door of the Sheep. And he 6th verse, This Parable spake Jesus unto them. What more [Page 28] pressing a figurative understanding of this passage, I am the door? But when we read, This is my Body, we cannot over-see, which shall be given for you, which maintains the Reality.

You instance, Christ said, I am the true Vine: I answer, the Cy­riac John 15. interprets, I am the Vine of truth. Descend to the 5th Verse, and Christ says, I am the Vine, as, you are the Branches: both a full Attestation of a Parable. But where Jesus tells me, the Bread John 6. which I will give is my Flesh, and that Flesh which I will give for the life of the World, what more conclusive for the Catholic Interpretation?

You urge, St. Paul says, Ye are the Body of Christ. I an­swer; 1 Cor. 12. the Apostle declares, Verse 13. we are spiritually; For by one Spirit we are baptized into one Body. But where Christ said, my Flesh is meat indeed, I find added many repetitions which in­crease a confirmation of the true Substance.

You finish, They drank of the Rock which followed them, and that Rock was Christ.

I answer, you are afraid to be just, excluding the word Spiri­tual. 1 Cor. 10. For we read, v. 3. Our Fore-fathers all eat the same spiri­tual Meat, v. 4. and did drink all the same spiritual Drink; for they drank of that spiritual Rock, and that Rock was Christ. What if for a threefold word, Spiritual, in the precedent, I find a triple evi­dence of the true substance of Christ in the Sacrament, which necessarily requires the strictly literal and divine sense of our Blessed Saviour's words? St. Luke confirms, which is shed for you. St. Mark, shed for many. St. Matthew, for the remission of sins.

Article II. Whether Similitudes exclude the sense of Transubstantiation.

IF it be well known, as you write, that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie; It is not less evident, that the four Similitudes you heap together, are not prejudicial to the Catholic Exposition of our Saviour's words. These Similitudes shall be delivered in single Paragraphs.

Article III. Upon the Context of St. Matthew.

YOU pretend that it was true Wine which our Saviour drank of, and communicated. I Answer, not after Consecration. You Chap. 26. urge our Saviour said; I will not henceforth drink of this fruit of the Vine, this was true Wine. I Answer, that although we cannot collect from St. Matthew clearly, whether these last words of our Saviour belonged to the Consecrated or not Consecrated Wine, yet that clearness which St. Matthew's shortness feems to want, St. Luke abundantly supplies, describing the order of the Passover, and delivering the Institution of the Sacrament. So where we read in St. Matthew? I will not drink of the fruit of the Chap. 22. [Page 33] Vine: St. Luke interprets, and his Interpretation is true, the fruit of the Vine before Consecration, at the Supper of the Passover. With desire, says our Saviour, I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof, until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God. And he took the Cup, and gave thanks, and said, take this and divide among your selves, for I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, untill the Kingdom of God shall come. Is not this a plain repetition of St. Matthew's words? And here ended the Passover or Pas­chal Supper. The Institution of the Sacrament immediately followed while they sate at Table, and therefore St. Luke con­tinues; And he took Bread—likewise also the Cup after Supper, saying, This Cup is the New Testament, in my Blood, which is shed for you. Here is the Eucharistic Cup, which had nothing to do with the fruit of the Vine that was used before Consecration at the Paschal Supper.

Article IV. The Sense of St. Paul to the Corinthians. 1 Cor. 10.

THUS St. Paul speaks of this Sacrament. The Cup of Bles­sing which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ?

These words, the Bread which we break, signifie the Sacrament. For instead of them, we read in the Acts of the Apostles, accor­ding to the Syriac Version, the Eucharist.

Now for the meaning of the word Communion. Some will have it to be taken for Distribution. Thus the word Communion, is equi­valent to doth Communicate, and makes this Sense; The distribution of the Sacrament, doth it not communicate to us the (true) Body of Christ? Thus if I stould say, that the distribution of Bread in usual eating, is the Communion of Bread, would not any Man of Sense understand this to be meant of true Bread?

Others, notwithstanding this natural Exposition, in the be­half of the Roman Catholic Assertion, will have the word Communion, to signifie the Substance of Bread. If it must signifie Substance, let us deal fairly, and in the place of Communion, substi­tute the word Substance; and so we shall easily see to what this Substance belongs. The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion. Substance of the Body of Christ?

[Page 34] Neither can the Church of Rome as well argue from the fol­lowing Verse 17. For we being many are one Bread, and one Body; that all Christians are substantially chang'd, first into Bread, and then into the Natural Body of Christ, as you will have it; Because we see no Reason in the World for this. And the Divine Apo­stle instructs us otherwise, declaring the precise and only Rea­son of this Unity; For we are all Partakers of the same Body. 'Tis Participation, not any Substantial Change in our selves makes us one in Christ. Nor is a pressing Example wanting in the Apostle, to the same purpose; are not they (the Pagans) which eat of the Sacrifices, Partakers of the Altar?

You instance, the same Apostle speaking of the Consecration of the Elements, still calls them the Bread, and the Cup, in three Verses together.

This is Acute and Subtile. But each Witty Contrivance is not true. It is not true, St. Paul calls the Consecrated Elements, the Bread and the Wine. We read indeed in three Verses toge­ther, the bare word of Bread attributed to the Eucharist, as of­ten as you eat this Bread; and this is all we read; which may be said without any prejudice to the Substantial Change. And this for two Reasons, both dictated by the Holy Ghost. First, By reason of the outward appearance of Bread. Secondly, Be­cause it formerly was Bread.

The First Reason St. Luke authorises in the Acts. Behold two Acts 1. 20. Men stood by them in white apparel. Here the bare Name of Man is attributed to Angels, and Angels are only Men in appearance.

The Second Reason is deduced from two Substantial Con­versions. We read in Exodus, They cast down every Man his Rod, Exod. 7. 12. and they became Serpents, but Aaron's Rod swallowed up the Rods of the Magicians. And in St. John, when the Ruler of the Feast had tasted the Water that was Wine. He tasted Water, and the Wa­ter was Wine; The Serpent is called a Rod, and was a Ser­pent: because the Serpent, and the Wine, were formerly a Rod and Water.

It is then true, that the bare Name of bread may be attribu­ted to the Eucharist without any prejudice of the Substantial Change of Bread into the true Body of Christ.

And if it be not true that St. Paul says, the Consecrated Ele­ments are Bread and Wine; it is true that St. Paul calls the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body. Jesus took Bread, and when he 1 Cor. 11. [Page 35] had given thanks, brake it, and said, take, eat, St. Chrys. Hic [...]. this is my Body, which is broken for you. So does St. Chrysostom; What is the Bread? the Body of St. Ambr. l. 2. de Fide, c. 4. Panis hic Caro est. Christ. So does St. Ambrose; This Bread is Flesh.

You resume, this is my Body which is broken, cannot be literal­ly understood of his Natural Body broken, because his Body was then whole and unbroken.

I answer, how can you contradict our Saviour, who says, this is my Body which is broken? And if it be Christ's Body, 'tis his real Body: for he had no Phantasm or imaginary Body. Nor did I ever hear that Christ had two real Bodies. But the same Body may have two different existences, a Natural, and Supernatural Existence. For if God can give a Natural Exi­stence to what is not, can what is, hinder God from adding a Supernatural Existence?

Now these Words, which is broken, cannot be understood of the Natural Existence of our Saviour's Body hanging on the Cross, for there his Body was unbroken; whence that of St. Chry­sistom, we may see this in the Eucharist, and the contrary on the Ibidem. Os e­jus non conte­retur. Cross, His bones shall not be broken.

Nor is it hard to conceive, how the Body of Christ may be said to be broken in the Sacrament. For as a Substance is said to be visible, by reason of the visible accidents which environ it; Thus we commonly say, I saw a Man, and yet nor Soul, nor Substance of the Body, but only the shape and outward appearance of the Substance, was the object of the Eye. So likewise Christ's Body in the Sacrament, takes the denominati­on of broken from the Species of Bread, which is truly divided.

Article V. The Silence of the Apostles at the Institution.

YOU ought not to be surprised if the Disciples (frequently full of Questions and Objections) should make no difficulty of this matter, when our Saviour instituted the Sacrament: not so much as ask our Saviour, How can these things be? or tell him, We see this to be Bread and Wine, and thy Body distinct from both.

My reason is, because when the Jews and the Disciples were blamed for these inquiries, at the promise of our Saviour; [Page 36] the Apostles (assisted with Divine Grace) gave credit to our Sa­viour's Words. And if they believed the Promise, why should they be disquieted at the Institution?

We read after these words in St. John, (where the Promise of Christ in the Sacrament is given, The Bread which I will give is my Flesh:) This Passage, the Jews therefore strove amongst themselves, saying, how can this man give us his Flesh to eat?

This Jewish Opposition was seconded with the murmur of Christ's Disciples, many therefore of his Disciples when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying, who can hear it?

This murmur after all our Saviour's Arguments to settle the Jews in the belief of what was promised, ended in a plain deser­tion or leaving of Jesus, from that time many of his Disciples went and walked no more with him.

Here is the reluctancy you sought for, and the Objections you demanded in the Apostles. But do you think this Resistance was laudable in the Jews? Do you believe this Opposition was commendable in the Disciples? Or rather, to be disturbed at our Saviour's Ordination and Assertion, Is it not the beginning of Incredulity? And yet for all this, you raise Sense, and erect it as an Idol to the Peoples Devotions. Bewitching Sense! whose Allurements intice the greatest Integrity of Noblest Souls, and would win too their Thoughts, if less than a God interposed.

Hence this Speech of St. Hilary, that great Persecutor of Arianism. There is folly in decla­ring L. 1. St. Hil. de Trin. c. 8. Deveritate Carnis & Sanguinis ejus non relictus est ambigendi locus, nunc & ipsius Domini professione & fide nostra, vere Caro est & ve­re Sanguis est. for Jesus Christ, had we not received from him, this Lesson of Truth. Jesus says the Bread is tru­ly Flesh, and the Wine is truly Blood; after this Declaration ther's left no place to doubt of the verity of his Flesh and Blood.

St. Ambrose opposes to the restless importu­nity St. Amb. de Abra. Patriarcha, Quàm indignum est Humanis Testi­moniis de alio credamus, Dei ora­culis de se non credamus? of Sense, the prerogative of the Deity; Lest asking of God what we expect from man, rea­son of things, we should entrench upon Divine Pre­rogatives. And what more unworthy than to believe men in Testimonies they give one of another, and to despise God in those he speaks of himself?

St. Chrysostom adds, We speak of God, and you ask how this can be? St. Chrys. hîc, [...]. do you not tremble at the excess of your Temerity?

[Page 37] Our Blessed Saviour himself reprehended his Disciples, fol­lowing John 6. 62. what Sense suggested at the proposal of the Sacrament, in these words, doth this offend you?

Finally, The pious Christian guides his unruly Sense in the journey towards Heaven, by the steady Reyns of true Faith.

Thus the Apostles overcoming their own stubborness, be­came supple and obedient to God's Promise and Power, infi­nitely active beyond Human Imagination, and they all joyned in St. Peter's confession, And we believe, and are sure thou art Christ Verse 69. the Son of the living God.

Thus Divine Faith another time prevailed with St. Peter Matth. 14. (when Sense, Reason, and the fury of the Sea, contradicted) to press the Waves with his Feet; and hardned the watry E­lement, into a solid Passage. The way to Heaven is still by Faith.

From all which it must needs be very evident to any Man, who will piously search into Truth, how little reason there is to un­derstand our Saviour's Words otherwise than in the sense of Transubstantiation.

Article I. Upon St. Justin Martyr.

YOU begin unfortunately with St. Justin, whom you make expresly to say, that our St. Justin. Apol. 2. [...]. blood and flesh are nourished by the conversion of that Food, which we receive in the Sacrament.

I find no such thing in the holy Martyr. 'Tis true, I read these words, By which Food (chang'd in our Bodies, [...]) our Blood and Flesh are nourished. What then? Bread and Wine taken out of the Sacrament, nourish, according to this Passage, Flesh and Blood, which all the World will allow of. And I shall believe St. Justin says no more, till you can prove it from the Saint's own Testimonie. But why do I say Testimonie, when the Passage you cite, is nothing but a bare Parenthesis? I could heap up a great many such weaknesses, collected out of your Discourse, if the World were not already too much troubled with such trivial Reflections. I'll take li­berty to add one more considerable, viz. If natural digestion can change Bread and Wine into the proper Substance of our Bodies, how easy will it be to Nature's Author, to change one thing into another, Bread into the Body of Christ? Nor can any moderate Man imagin any thing less, when the Devil himself tempted Christ to change one Substance into another, Stones into Bread, as a Strategem to find out, whether he was God.

Look likewise into the Book of Genesis, and you'll find that the sole Word of God, gave, in the beginning of Creation, a Being to all Nature: and how much more difficult is it, to make all things of nothing, than to change one thing into ano­ther? [Page 39] Does not this evidence the possibility of Transubstantia­tion? I thank you for this Objection.

Article II. Upon St. Irenaeus.

NOR are you more fortunate in St. Irenaeus, who speaking L. 4. c. 37. of the Sacrament, says. The Bread which is from the Earth receiving the Divine Invocation, is now no longer common Bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly. For, what is earthly, may not unfitly be called the species of Bread; and what is heavenly, Christ himself. Or what if I should attribute this earthly thing to Christ's Humanity, and the heavenly thing to Christ's Divinity, the Sacrament would be rightly said, consisting of two things, the one earthly, the other heavenly? I am sure the Proper Substance of Bread, is nothing but Common Bread; And yet St. Irenaeus affirms, this ceases af­ter Consecration; receiving the Divine Invocation, 'tis no longer Common Bread, it is not what it was before.

You instance, and elsewhere he hath this Passage; when L. 5. c. 2. therefore the Cup that is mixt, and the Bread that is broken, receives the Word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ, of which the substance of our Flesh is increased, and subsists.

St. Irenaeus discourses not here of a natural, but of some spiri­tual increase of Flesh and Blood. For he says, our Flest is in­creased with the Bread, as it becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, in which sense precisely, 'tis only supernatural Food.

Bread, as it is supernatural Food, or the true Body of Christ in the Sacrament, increases the Soul with Grace; and Flesh and Blood with a Legitimacy of Immortality. These two great Benefits are neatly delivered, as the proper effects of Christ's substantial presence in the Sacrament, Catech 37. Oportet autem sicut exitiale, ita etiam salutare medi­camentum admitti intra viscera ho­minis, ut per illa distribuatur in universum Corpus, virtus ejus quod fert opem. Quid hoc ergo est? ni­hil aliud quam illud Corpus, quod & morte ostensum fuit esse potentius & nostrae Vitae fuit initium. in these words of the Nyssene Doctor; As the dire consequence of Poyson is by Counterpoyson pre­vented; so the wholsome remedy, which operates our Salvation, entring the Bowels of Man, thence every-where diffuses its force and vivification. What is this (wholsome) remedy? That Body which Jesus exhibited stronger than Death, and [Page 40] which was the beginning of Life. What can more evince Christ's substantial Presence, to be the productive Cause of Sacramental Grace, than to testifie, this Adorable Body, which died for us, is in ours, as a wholsome remedy, there communicating Vir­tue, and dispensing heavenly Treasures?

So is the same true Body of Christ present in the Sacrament, the cause effective of our future Incorruption in Glory; and in­creases in this sense the substance of Flesh and Blood, with a be­ginning of Immortality; as appears from the following Lines of the same Father. Jesus, Eâ de cautâ per suae Gratiae dis­pensationem, se per Carnem inserit, omnibus credentibus, commissus & contemperatus corporibus creden­tium, quibus substantia est ex pane & vino, ut unione cum eo quod est immortale, sit etiam homo particeps incorruptionis. according to the dispensation of Grace, enters by Flesh into those who believe, mixing himself with the Body of the Faithful, that Man may become Partaker of Incorruption, by the union with this Immortal Body.

This second benefit in St. Irenaeus's mind increases the Sub­stance of Flesh and Blood, giving a beginning of resurrection to the Body: Or, to use this Saint's Example; As a grain of Wheat dissolved in earth, rises by the St. Irenaeus. Quemadmodum gra­num tritici decidens in terram, & dissolutam multiplex surgit per Spi­ritum Dei, sic & nostra Corpora Corpore Christi nutrita & reposita in terram, & resoluta, resurgent in suo tempore. power of God with much increase; so Flesh and Blood receiving in the Sacrament from the presence of Christ's Immortal Body, the living Seed of Incor­ruption, rise (when dissolved by death) increased with Immortality.

This agrees well with St. Irenaeus's design, demonstrating in the place objected, that our Bodies are capable of Resurrection, because we receive in the Sacrament the true Body of Christ, that Body which consists of Flesh, Blood and Bones. How can they deny, says he, the Flesh to be capable of the Gift of God? For we are Members of his Body, of his Flesh, and of his Bones. This is not spoken of a Spiritual or Metaphorical Man, for a Spirit has nei­ther Bone nor Flesh, but it is delivered according to the disposition of Man, which consists of Flesh, of L. 5. c. 2. De ea dispositione quae est secundum hominem, quae ex Car­nibus & Nervis & Ossibus consistit, quae de Calice, qui est Sanguis ejus nutritur, & de Pane, qui est Corpus ejus, augetur. Nerves, and Bones, which is nourished with the Cha­lice, which is his Blood, and increased with the Bread, which is his Body. Do not Flesh, Nerves, Bones and Blood, belong to a true Substantial Body?

You add St. Irenaeus's words, preserved by Oecumenius, when the Apud Oecum. in 1 Pet. 3. Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catecumeni (that is, [Page 41] such as were disposed, but not yet baptized) and afterwards ur­ged them by violence, to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians. These Servants having nothing to say, that might gratifie those who of­fered violence to them, except only that they had heard from their Ma­sters, that the Divine Communion was the Blood and Body of Christ; they thinking, that it was really Blood and Flesh, declared as much to those who question'd them. The Greeks taking this as it really were done by the Christians, discovered it to others of the Greeks, who here­upon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture, to make them confess it. To whom Blandina boldly answered, how would they endure to do this, who by way of exercise (or abstinence) do not eat that Flesh which may lawfully be eaten?

Now if we consider Blandina's Answer, we shall find therein contained, a pious denyal of what was objected, and a Christi­an reserve of what was received in the Sacrament. A pious denial of eating the Flesh and Blood of a Child, as the Greeks (and all Pagans) conceived, after a carnal manner, which shall be more amply discoursed hereafter. And this caused Blandina to say, How could they be guilty of such a heinous eating? who abstain, upon fasting days from Flesh which may lawfully be eaten? A Chri­stian reserve, not discovering the Mystery to Pagans, which was esteemed a betraying of Religion.

Thus Tharsilius the Acholyt, as venerable Beda relates, having V. Bede Mar­tyr, 18. Octr. the blessed Sacrament about him, was seized on by the Barba­rians, and martyr'd, because he refused to shew it.

St. Ambrose declares the discovery of the My­stery to those who were not baptized, pass'd not St. Amb. l. de Novis Baptis. c. 1. Prodidisse potius quàm edidisse ex­istimaremur. for an instruction, but for a sort of Treason in Reli­gion.

St. Cyril says, We speak not clearly of the Mystery to the Catecume­ni, St. Cyril, Hier. Cat. 6. and we are often constrained, to make use of such Expressions; which are understood by the Faithful instructed, and do not offend other Assistants. Such was Blandina's Reply, which neither offended the Greeks, nor betrayed the Mystery.

Article III. Upon Tertullian.

TErtullian proves against Marcion, as you write, the Heretique, Adv. Marcion. l. 4. p. 57. edit. Rigal. That the Body of our Saviour, was not a meer Phantasm and Appearance, but a real Body, because the Sacrament is a Figure, and an Image of his Body. His Words are these; The Bread which our Saviour took, and gave to his Disciples, he made his own Body, saying, this is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body. But it could not have been a Figure of his Body, if there had not been a true and real Body.

Tertullian, often sententious, and difficult in ex­pression, as Lactantius and St. Jerom affirm, Lact. de Divin. Inst. l. 5. c. 1. may easily be misunderstood, and misrepre­sented. St. Hierom. de Inst. Mon. ad Paul. Tom. 1. Creber in sententiis diffici­lis in loquendo.

This Father's design here, is to confute the Marcionites, who defended that the God of the Old Testament, was opposite to God the Father of Christ, Author of the New Law. He makes good this undertaking, proving the perfect agreement of both Testaments, completed in Jesus, who did not abolish, but fulfil the Law, when he changed the Shadow into a Body, the Figure into Truth, As Tertullian phrases it, in his Fisth Book against Marcion.

This Accomplishment he shew'd from that of Jeremy, where Jer. Mitta­mus lignum in Panem ejus. we read how the Jews fast'ned to the Cross the Bread of Christ, that is, his Body. This he evidenced, because Bread in the Old Law, was a Figure of Christ's Body. These are his Words, It is what God has revealed in Tertul. l. 3. c. 19. Contra. Marc. Sic enim Deus in Evangelio quoque vestro revelavit, Panem Corpus su­um appellans, ut & hinc jam tum intelligas Corporis sui figuram Pa­ne dedisse, cujus retro Corpus in Pa­ne Propheta Figuravit. your own Gospel, calling Bread his Body, making known by this, that Christ, whose Body the Prophet represented in Bread, long before he fulfilled this Fi­gure, gave from this very time (of the Prophecy) Bread to be the Figure of his Body.

These Words, Christ gave the Bread, even from the time of Jeremy, to be the Figure of his Body, represent Christ as Master; and these others, Jeremy represented in Bread the Body of Christ, exhibit the Prophet as Minister. Both testifie, that Bread was a Figure in the Written Law; and the Subordination of Jeremy [Page 43] to Jesus, proves the concord of Christ with the ancient Testa­ment, which was Tertullian's peculiar Task.

The same he pursues in the place by you cited, Bread, (He Lib. 4. made his own Body, saying, this is my Body,) that is, a Figure in the Prophet of Christ's Body. This sense agrees well with the foregoing Tenor of this learned Father's Discourse. 2. These following Words are another Confirmation, But it would not have been a Figure of his Body, if there was not a true Body. He does not say, it was not a Figure, he says, it would not have been a Figure in the Old Law. 3. Marcion argues for you, but why did he call Bread his Body, and not something else? Tertullian answers, that he argued thus, not knowing Bread was an ancient Figure of the Body of Christ, as we learn Lib. 4. c. 40. Non intelligens ve­terem fuisse istam Figuram Corporis Christi dicentis per Jeremiam.— from Jeremy. 4. He confirms the same in these Words, You may likewise acknowledge the Ut autem & Sanguinis veterem Figuram in Vino recognoscas. Old Figure of Blood in Wine.

It follows also from hence, that our Saviour's Body, was not a Phantasm or an Appearance, which was another of the Mar­cionits Errors, but a real Body; not that the Sacrament, as you would have it, but that Bread in the Old Law, as I have demonstrated, was a Figure and Image of his Body in the Sa­crament; which must be a true Body; otherwise there is a Fi­gure of a Figure, which your own party will not allow of Nor could it, adds Tertullian, have been a Figure of his Body, if there had not been a true and real Body.

If for all this you will pretend, that as Bread in the Prophet was a Figure, so likewise is Bread still in the Eucharist a Figure of Christ's Body; I may without prejudice to the Catholic Be­lief, humour you so far, as to grant the Sacramental Bread is a Figure, but a Figure joyned to the Reality. For if you will say, what you find not in Tertullian, that the Bread in the Sacra­ment is a Figure of Christ's Body, you cannot deny but you read in this Father, that Christ made the Bread his Body, as we read in St. John, he made Water Wine. The Sacrament may then be a Fi­gure, and the true Body.

Thus he proves the same thing to be called a Figure, and yet to be the same substance, instancing, the Word is God, and L. 5. contra Marc. Deus est & Effigies. an Image too. The Catholic Church only disallows those Fi­gures, which exclude the true Substance of Christ's Body pre­sent in the Sacrament.

[Page 44] You urge a second Testimony from the same Author, using this Argument against the Sceptics, who rejected the certainty L. de cap. 17. of Sense, He might be deceived in the voice from Heaven, in the smell of the Oyntment, with which he was anointed against his burial, and in the taste of the Wine, which he consecrated in the remembrance of his Blood. These last Words are somewhat changed; Tertullian says, he tasted not another Non alium postea Vini saporem quod consecravit in Sanguinis sui memoriam. Savour of Wine which he consecrated in remem­brance of his Blood.

This learned Father established two Principles. 1. That Christ was truly Man. And 2. That his Operations were real like other Mens.

The First Verity, was not here Tertullian's Theme. This he vindicated against Marcion, where he proved that Christ was not a Phantasm, or Appearance.

The Second Verity Tertullian here made good, against the Sceptics. For if the sound of the Voice from Heaven was not imaginary, if the Smell of the Perfume was not Odorife­rous, and if there was not another Tast of the Wine, which was consecrated in remembrance of Christ's Blood; then these O­perations of our Saviour were not distinct from vulgar Sensa­tion, like those Impressions other Men naturally receive, sin­cere, real, and without delusion. All Catholics grant as much, and none will deny the same Tast of Wine after Consecration. But the Tast is not the Substance of Wine.

The Substance of Wine is not here spoken of. And the knowledge of Substance is the proper endeavour of Reason. Senses care is to search into the certainty of Colour, Tast, Ac­cidents and Appearances, which was Tertullian's Province against the Sceptics.

The whole Controversie then between us is left by this Obje­ction entire and untouched.

Article IV. Upon Origen.

ORigen, on his Comment on St. Matthew, speaking of the Sacrament, hath this Passage; That Food which is sanctified by the Word of God, and Prayer, as to that of it which is material, [Page 45] goeth into the Belly, and is cast out into the Draught, which none surely will say (as you remark) of the Body of Christ.

But some have said it of the Body of Christ, which they thought was conveyed under the shape of material Accidents of Bread into the Draught: which Sense, if admitted to be Ori­gen's, the Learned Cardinal Peron might say without injury, Origen talks like an Heretic. Peron in Orig.

The same Illustrious Cardinal doubts whether this be the Work of Origen; because he says, Erasmus was the first that produced this Old Fragment; where he had it, no Body knows; and this not a Fragment, but only a Version thereof, and cautioned by himself.

Sixtus Senensis suspects this Testimony of Origen was depraved Sixtus Sen. Bib. s. l. 6. Geneb. Praef. in Origen. by Heretics. Genebrard is of the same Opinion.

These Critical Censures take all assurance from your Obje­ction, rendring it either dubious, or depraved, or heretical.

Moreover, if Origen in this Passage, should downright pre­scribe the Catholic Belief of the change of Bread into the Body of Christ, this ought not to disquiet any sober Inquirer. Be­cause his chief Error was the exclusion of the literal Sense in Scripture. Whereupon Lirinensis calls Origen the Interpreter Lirin. in Comm. St. Epiph. Haer. 64. Theoph. l. Pasch. 1. Con. Gen. 5. Collat. 8. cap. 11. of Scripture after a new manner. St. Epiphanious complains he turned all into Allegories. Theophilus says, he supplants by Shades and Images the Truths of Scripture. And the Church in the Fifth Oecumenical Council, peculiarly anathematised his Works.

Finally, If I should answer, by what is material is understood only the material Accidents of Bread and Wine which go in­to the Belly, and are cast into the Draught, what inconvenience would follow, from your Objection? No more, than what follows from what the same Father adds by way of explication, It is not the matter of the Bread, but the Word which is spoken over it, which profiteth him who worthily eateth the Lord; and this (he says) he had spoken, concerning the Typical and Symbolical Body. So that the Matter of Bread receives the Word of God spoken over it, and this Word, as it changes the Substance of Bread, so doth it profit the worthy Receiver; and this Word Origen calls the Typical and Symbolical Body of Christ, because the Word is Spiritual Food. Thus the fame Father, in his Homilies up­on Leviticus proves Christ's Flesh to be true Meat, because all [Page 46] his Speech is true Food. And he adds St. Peter, St. Paul, and all Homil. 7. in Levit. Cibus est Petrus & Paulus & om­nes Apostoli. the Apostles are Food, will you conclude from hence, the Apo­stles were not true Men?

At least, if this will not do, you resolve to do the bu­siness by drawing out of the same Homily, a killing Letter of the New Testament. For if, says Origen, we take according to the Letter, that which is said, except ye eat my Flesh, and drink my Blood, this Letter kills.

This Letter except ye eat my Flesh, (understood of the Substan­tial presence of Christ's Body after a Sacramental manner, in­visible to Sense, under the species of Bread,) is what gives life in the Catholic Church, according to that of St. John, who shall eat my Flesh, shall live for ever. John 6.

If Roman Catholics be out of danger, the blow must fall else where. It falls upon the Capharnaits, who following the naked Letter, carnally thought our Saviour would give his Flesh to be served in as common Meat, and cut in Pieces. It falls upon those who literally adhering to what they see, be­lieve they receive, what it seems to be, Bread. Upon both these it falls.

If we follow, saith Origen, the Letter, and expound it either according to the Jews acceptation Levit. 7. Hom. Si vero adsideamus literae, & secundum hoc: vel quod Judaeis; vel id quod vulgò videtur, accipiamus, quae in lege scripta sunt, erubesco dicere & confiteri, quia ta­les Leges dederit Deus. (were not these the Capharnaity,) or accor­ding to what it seems commonly to be, (are you not of this Number) I blush to confess what is writ in the Law. Thus you strike at Catholics with the Killing Letter of Origen, and wound your self together with the Capharnaits.

For your warlike Argument give me leave to propose two peaceable ones, out of the same Father.

The First is in his Homilies upon Numbers, where he compares the Figure with the Figu­rated, Hom. 7. in Numb. the Manna with the Body of Christ; Tunc in aenigmate erat Manna Cibus, nunc autem in specie Caro verbi Dei est verus Cibus. Quae in aenigmate designabantur nunc in specie & veritate complentur. The Manna was in Figure Food. Now in rea­lity the Flesh of the Word God is true Meat. And what was first in the Figure designed, is now com­pleated in truth and reality.

The Second is contained in these Words, Homil. 5. In diversa. Quando illud incorruptum accipias epulum, quando vite pane & populo frueris, manduc as & bibis Corpus & San­guinem Domini. Tunc Dominus subtectum tuum ingreditur, & tu ergo humilians teipsum, imitare hunc Centurionem, & dicito, Domine non sum dignus, ubi enim indigne in­greditur, ibi ad judicium ingredi­tur accipienti. When you receive the Holy Food and Incorruptible Banquet, when in the Bread and Cup of life, you [Page 47] eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Lord, then our Lord enters under your roof; do you therefore humbling your self imitate the Centurion, and say, Lord, I am not worthy thou shouldst enter under my Roof, for where he enters unworthily, there he en­ters in Judgment with the Receiver. This holy Food cannot be the substance of Bread, because Origen calls it an incorruptible Banquet; Bread is not such. Nor can it be a bare typical Figure of the Lord; for when the Centurion said, O Lord, I am not worthy, 'twas our own Saviour present. And if this Humiliation, O Lord, I am unworthy, be attributed to any thing but our Saviour there pre­sent, how can you excuse it from Idolatrie? Finally, this Lord invocated, enters into the wicked, which cannot be by Faith. For your Church, teaches unworthy Receivers are not parta­kers of the Lord in the Sacrament by Faith.

Article V. Ʋpon St. Cyprian.

YOU object St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle to Caecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water, with­out Wine mingled with it; and his main Ar­gument against them is this, that the Blood of Nec potest videri Sanguis ejus quo redempti, & vivificati, esse in Ca­lice, quando Vinum desit Calici, quo Christi Sanguis ostenditur. L. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caecilium. Christ with which we are redeemed and quickned, cannot seem to be in the Cup when Wine is wanting to the Chalice, by which the Blood of Christ is re­presented.

Very well. It is Wine in representation, and the Blood of Christ is in the Cup by propriety or essence; for it is that Blood with which we were redeemed and quickned, according to St. Cy­prian.

You argue afterwards from these other Words of the same Saint, by the Water the People is understood; by Wine the Blood of Christ is shew'n; but when in the Cup Water is mingled with Wine, the People are united to Christ; so that you deduce, according to this Argument, Wine in the Sacramental Cup, is no otherwise changed into the Blood of Christ, than the Water mixed with it is changed into the People, which are said to be united to Christ.

[Page 48] I shall not be strictly put to it, for an Answer, after I have Jesus ostendens gentium Popu­lum succedere in locum quem Judaei perdide­rant de aqua vinum fecit. thus proposed St. Cyprian's mind. St. Cyprian compares here the Jews to Wine, the Gentiles to Water, at the Marriage of Ca­naan. The want of Wine marked out the Jews, who refused to embrace the Law of Christ; The plentifulness of Water re­presented the Gentiles converted to Christianity. Hence Wa­ter comes in the Sacrament to design the Elected People, Wine the Blood of Christ, and both mixt in the Chalice, the union of the People with Christ. Now to your Argument. And that I may the better convince you, give me leave to make use of your Logic.

Water is the People as Wine is Christ; then as we receive Christ by Faith in the Sacrament, so do we the People: And consequently the People sanctify the Soul as Christ doth in the Eucharist. Are you not ashamed of your Sophism? Or rather, how durst you equalize the People with Christ, Sinners with their Saviour, Man with God?

Again, Wine signified the Jews, according to St. Cyprian, and Water the Gentiles; now deduce from hence, the Water was not changed into Wine at the Marriage of Canaan, as you have done from the like instance, that the mixed Chalice is not changed into Christ's Body and Blood.

Article VI. Upon St. Augustin.

THE variety of Testimonies you gather from St. Augustin, cannot well without perplexity, be considered altogether. I'll endeavour to decline this Confusion, examining each one of them in so many Paragraphs.

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.

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 have said to Theodoretus, that is, the outward shape of Bread remains. And if these Words immediately following what you objected, had been cited, the difficulty would have been removed. They (the inward Substance of Bread and Wine) pass by the operation of the Holy Ghost into a Divine Nature, yet remaining in the propriety of their Nature. It is only the Proprieties of the Nature of the Bread and Wine, the Colour, and the Tast, that remain. The Substance is changed; For how could the inward Substance of Bread and Wine pass by Divine operation into Christ's Body, and not cease to be? how can a Protestant pass into the Roman Catholic Church, and become a pious Member thereof, and not truly cease to be a Protestant?

This Gelasius is not the learned Pope Gelasius; and I need not Gelas. de duab. Nat. Bib. Psal. Tom. 4. labour to prove this. Your own Critics write, that that Treatise de duabus naturas, whence you borrowed this Objection, belongs to some other of the same Name. I shall instance only one reason. This Author ranks the Works of Eusebius Caesariensis among those of the Orthodox Fathers, which cannot be said of the pious and learned Pope Gelasius, who numbers the same Eusebius in his own Authentic Works, with Apocryphal Wri­ters. There is then not one of our Popes against Transubstan­tiation: And if you cannot alledg one Pope from the beginning of Christianity, who teaches contrary to what is now profes­sed in the Roman Church, concerning this contested Article of Faith, is it not a great Argument that it was alwaies taught in the Church of God?

Article IX. Upon Facundus.

FAcundus the African Bishop, justifying Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Facund. p. 144. who had said, That Christ also received the adoption of Sons, reasons thus, Christ vouchsafed to receive the Sacrament of Adoption, both when he was circumcised and baptized; and the Sacrament of A­doption may be called Adoption, as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood is by us called his Body and Blood.

The intern Grace of the Holy Ghost received in Baptism, properly constitutes us the true Sons adoptive of God, which could not be conferr'd on our Saviour; for he was enriched with the plenitude of perfection, and was the natural Son of God. Yet Christ may be said, Facundus urges, to receive the Adop­tion of Sons, because he vouchsafed to receive Baptism, the Sa­crament of Adoption. Then seeking an Example to verify that Baptism may be called Adoption, though it was not, but only contain'd the Grace of Adoption, was forced instancing the Blessed Sacrament, barely to consider the Sacrament in the outward Species of Bread in the Eucharist, which may be cal­led the Body and Blood of Christ; because it contains the Body and Blood of Christ. What is contain'd in Baptism, is it not the proper Grace of Adoption? and what is con­tained in the Consecrated Species, is the true Body and Blood of Christ.

Can any after this believe, that what you have objected, pre­judices in the least the Universal and received Doctrin of the Christian Church, of Bread and Wine substantially chang'd in the Sacrament into the proper and true Body and Blood of Christ?

What you repeat by way of Appendix, the Names of some Catholic Divines, is inconsiderable. Only this I can say, you might have more prudently omitted them in your own behalf, than chang'd their Words in detriment to the Scotus, l. 4. & 11. q. 3. n. 18. ad 3. In Concil. Lat. Ubi-explioi­cite ponitur veritas, aliquorum Credendorum magis explicite quàm habebatur in Symbolo Apostolorum, vel Athanasii, vel Nicaeni, & bre­viter, quidquid ibi dicitur esse Cre­dendum, tenendum est esse de sub­stantia Fidei. Catholic Doctrin. For Scotus only says, that the truth of some Articles, is more explicit or manifest in the Lateran Decrees, than it was in the Symbols of the Apostles, or in the Athanasian Creed, [Page 62] or that of Nice; and in a word, what ever is here defin'd (in the Council of Lateran) is to be held as a sincere part of our Faith.

Durandus does not say, that he would have been of a contra­ry Opinion, had not the Church defin'd for Transubstantia­tion; but only tacitly insinuates, that he would have made use of the Bread and Wine, remaining with the Body of Christ in the Sacrament, which was possible to God, though really false, in order to solve some Objections, had not the Canon of the Church interven'd. Nor ought we to be sur­prised at this. For Durandus ordinarily walked Durand. 4. & Numb. 9. on the brink of Faith in Assertions, and there­fore Substantia Panis & Vini conver­titur in substantiam Corporis & Sanguinis Christi. Quamvis iste modus sit de facto, non est tamen negandum quin alius modus fit Deo possibilis, scil. quod remanente sub­stantia Panis & Vini, Corpus & Sanguis Christi esset in Sacramento. merited the Title of Temerarius Doctor in the Church of God. These are his Words, The Sub­stance of Bread and Wine is changed into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ; yet although this be really true, it was possible to God that the Body of Christ might have been in the Sacrament, with the Et Numb. 18. Sed quia hic mo­dus non debet teneri, de facto, cum Ecclesia determinavit oppositum, quae non presumitur errare in tali­bus: ideo tenendo de facto aliam partem, respondendum est ad argu­menta quae sunt in contrarium. Substance of Bread, which is not really true, for the Church has decreed the contrary, and she is presum'd not to err in her decisions; Therefore holding the Bread chang'd into Christ's Body, I answer to the contrary Objections.

Tunstal Bishop of Durham says, from the beginning of Chri­stianity, no body doubted of the real presence of Christ in the Sacrament, and that the Learned Ancient Writers look'd upon the manner, how the Bread passed into Christ's Body, as in­scrutable and not to be searched into, lest we should seem to tempt Christ with the Capernaits, doubting how this can be? But through God-almighty's pow­er, Tunstal de Euchar. Sed Omni­potentia Dei cui nihil est impossibile, his qui cum Innocentio in eo Conci­lio interfuerunt visum est, quod is modus maxime, cum verbis hisce Christi, hoc est Corpus meum, con­gruere illis visus est. to whom nothing is impossible, the change of Bread into Christ's Body (by Transubstantiation) seem'd to Innocent the Third, and those who sat with him in Council, to agree most with these Words of Christ, This is my Body. And he censures those who deny this change, with impudent boldness, and opposes them to Christ; saying, If we be­lieve them (who profess your Error) neither Si illis credimus, nec Christus, nec Spiritus Sanctus id efficere possit, ut panis in Corporis Christi substan­tiam transeat. Christ nor the Holy Ghost, can change Bread into the Substance of Christ's Body, whose Word made all things of nothing.

[Page 63] Tell me what was Erasmus's Thought, and I'le answer what Religion he was of. In some places he favours the Lutherans, oftentimes he's a Catholic; I am sure he's not a Protestant in that Epistle to Conradus; If you are persuaded there's nothing besides Epistola ad Conradum Pel­licanum do Euch. Si tibi persuasum est in Synaxi nihil esse praeter Panem & Vinum, ego membratim discerpi malim quam profiteri quod tu profiteris, & omnia perpeti malim, quam tali flagitio contra meam conscien­tiam admisso ex hac vita migrare. Bread and Wine in the Sacrament, I had rather be torn in pieces, than profess what you profess.

If Alphonsus say ther's seldom mention in Ancient Writers Alph. à Castro de Hers. l. 8. concerning Transubstantiation, these seldom Intimations are sufficient to shew, that 'twas always taught in the Church of God, which ought to convince any unbyased Understanding.