An answer to A discourse against transubstantiation

PART I.

I Sub-divide my Firſt Part into five Sections, comprehending the five pretended grounds, one or more of which, you ſuppoſe the Church of Rome builds this Doctrin on. Firſt, The Authority of Scripture. Or Secondly, the perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Chriſtian Church. Or Thirdly, the Authority of the Church to make, or declare an Article of Faith. Or Fourthly, the abſolute Neceſſity of ſuch a Change, for the benefit of thoſe who receive this Sacrament. Or Fifthly, to magnify the Power of the Prieſt.

SECT. I. Whether Scripture authoriſe Tranſubſtantiation.

BEfore I begin to diſcuſs whether Scripture authoriſe Tranſubſtantiation: I think it convenient to premiſe two Reflections, upon two conſiderable Circumſtances, delivered in your Introduction.

Firſt Reflection upon the word Tranſubſtantiation.

In the very firſt entrance of your Diſcourſe, you complain it is a hard word; and afterwards increaſe your complaint with this unparallel'd exaggeration. It was almoſt 300 years before this miſhapen Monſter of Tranſubſtantiation could be lick'd into that Form Page 25. in which it is now ſetled and eſtabliſhed in the Church of Rome. Bold Aſſertions ought to be ſupported with great Proofs: And Monſtrous Vilifications of the Divine Goodneſs expiated with more than ordinary Repentance. Heaven forbid, that our Bleſſed Saviour ſhould ever prove a miſhapen Monſter, even to thoſe who moſt oppoſe revealed Truth expreſſed in Tranſubſtantiation.

A hard word, and who can endure it; a new word, and who will admit it? St. Hilary anſwers you in this Reply to the Arian Heretics, importuning the primitive Church of Chriſt with the like expreſſions, Say rather, if you ſpeak wiſely, will you not wage new Wars againſt new St. Hil. cont. conſt. Aug. Die prius, ſi rectè diſputas, nolo adverſus nova venena novas medicamentorum comparationes. Enemies; or take freſh Counſels againſt new Treaſons; or drink Counterpoiſon against venomous Infections? Nor was St. Athanaſius's Interrogation St. Athan. d. cum Ario coram Probo. Nominis ne offenderis novitate, anetiam ret ipſius veritate, quae hoc eſt ſortita vocabulum. of leſs force: Are you offended at the newneſs of the Name? or affraid of the verity of the Myſtery?

The ſentiment of theſe two great Ornaments of the Church, is the common Practice of whole Sacred Antiquity; according to the Golden Sentence of Vincentius Lyrinenſis, The Church ordinarily appropriates ſome new term Vincent. Lyr. in Commonit. Eccleſia plerunque propter intelligentiae lucem, non novum fidei ſenſum novae appellationis proprietate ſignat. Nic. 1. in Sym. to ſignifie more pathetically the true Senſe of Faith. Thus did the firſt Oecumenical Council write 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Conſubſtantial, and the Arians could not digeſt the hardneſs of the Word. Thus did the Epheſian Prelates ſtile the B. Virgin, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Mother of God, which was Con. Ephes. anat. 1. Conc. Later. decret. 1211. an. no ſofter to the Neſtorians. And thus did the Lateran Biſhops ſubcribe to Tranſubſtantiation, and the Berengarians and Modern oppoſers of the Roman truth, expoſtulate with us for this Word, and modeſtly term it a Miſhapen Monſter.

Second Reflection upon the Evidence of Senſe.

Here you bring in Ariſtotle, who long ſince hath pronounced, There ought to be no diſpute of the matter of Senſe. I beg Pardon if I am not at leiſure, to digreſs with you towards Paganiſm. Neither can I think you ſerious, when you quote the Philoſopher's determination, for the Myſtery of the Lords Supper, who never profeſſed a revealed Religion, and died many Hundred years before Chriſtianity was Promulgated and Eſtabliſhed. Nor do I apprehend the leaſt danger to be overburden'd, with the heavy matter of Senſe, when my way leads to the Sublime matter of Revelation.

You cannot deny, Senſe, Reaſon, and Faith, are three various Perfections; ſo likewiſe are their Objects diſtinguiſhed. The Ariſtotle. Stagyrite never pretended Senſe ſhould reach farther than to the Accidents and Appearance of things. And Reaſons employ was the contemplation of Eſſence, Nature, and Subſtance. How could Ariſtotle pronounce, the matter of Senſe was never to be diſputed, when 'twas always to be pry'd into, and regulated by Reaſon?

Yet we do not diſpute with you, the Prerogative of Senſe in the Myſtery of the Sacrament. For we ſee the outward ſhape and appearance of Bread and Wine; nor is Taſt wanting. All this is granted. Unleſs then you perplex and embroil the Queſtion, Senſe repoſes, without violation, quiet and contented in its own Objects.

Nor ought you to believe, that Reaſon can ſecurely, without Error, always determin in Natural Sciences, according to the received impreſſion, from the viſible Sign, or Object of Senſe. This Maxim is given to Novices entring the liſt of Dialecticks, and admitted by the Sect of Peripateticks. So Reaſon enlarges the greatneſs of the Sun, and aſſures us, it far exceeds in bigneſs the Terreſtrial Orb, tho' Senſe incloſe it in the ſmall circumference of a Ball.

Senſe indeed and Reaſon combining together, and following the preſcript of Logick, are the proper deciders of Philoſophical conteſtations. Senſe pleads for no more, and if the Reaſon of Ariſtotle ſurviv'd, it would be abundantly ſatisfi'd with this voluntary conceſſion.

If for all this you reſolve to ſeat Reaſon in the Chair of Judicature, even where Revelation intervenes, Divine Authority will eaſily reſcue Chriſtian Religion from the information of Senſe. Reaſon following the Dictamen of outward exiſtence, told Abraham, what appeared were Men; Revelation corrected the Gen. 8. v. 2. miſtake, and aſſured him they were Angels. Reaſon affirmed what deſcended in the ſhape of a Dove, was that Innocent Creature: Luke 3. 22. Revelation reformed the Judgment, and intimated it was the Holy Ghoſt. Reaſon regards the Species of Bread as inherent to the proper Subſtance: Revelation changes that Subſtance into the Body of Chriſt. Abraham ſaw the figure and ſhape of Men, and yet the Subſtance of Man was wanting. The Feathers in appearance exhibited a Dove; the real Subſtance was ſupply'd with the preſence of the Holy Ghoſt.

Again, it was a Maxim of Philoſophy, what is, was from ſomething. And this Evidence vaniſhes at the ſight of Revelation, Ex nihilo nil fit. which teaches the whole Univerſe was Created of nothing. 'Twas a Principle, There's no return from Privation, to the Habit, from Death to Life; and this perſwaſion ceaſes, acknowledging our Saviours Reſurrection.

Reaſons reluctancy proceeding from Senſes information, muſt yield to the Power of Revelation, or we muſt ceaſe to be Chriſtians. Thus Julian Apoſtatiſed, and derided Chriſtians that they were ſo ſtupid, to blindfold Reaſon with the bare word of a Crede, you muſt Believe. This in St. Gregory Nazianzen is recorded. St. Clement St. Greg. Orat. 3. in the Second Centurie relates the ſame of the St. Clem. Alex. 2. Stom. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Greek Philoſophers, and confutes them by this Definition of Supernatural Faith: Faith which the Greeks look upon as vain and unreaſonable, is a voluntary Anticipation, a Pious yielding, the Substance of things which are hop'd for, and an evidence of what is not ſeen, according to the Divine Apostle. Faith is Firſt according to this Ancient Father, a voluntary Anticipation of Reaſon; and you wilfully Anticipate Faith by Reaſon. Secondly, Faith is a pious Aſſent to Divine Teſtimony; and you boldly contradict our Saviours own words. Thirdly, It is the Subſtance of things hop'd for; and you reply there's nothing to be hoped for of Subſtance in the Sacrament. Laſtly, Faith is an Evidence of things not ſeen; and you contend Reaſon evidences the contrary.

Reaſon rather with St. Ambroſe, who declares, St. Ambr. Super illud Pſal. Omnia opera ejus in fide. Non creditur Philoſophis, creditur Piſcatoribus. We believe Fiſher-men; we do not Believe Philoſophers.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, conceived it impoſſible St. Cyr. apud St. Maxim. Tò 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . to believe where Reaſon intermixes inquiries.

St. Chryſostom avow'd the very letting of an, St. Chrys. in Joan. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . How can it be, is a beginning of incredulity.

St. Augustin avers, that if we firſt demonſtrate St. Aug. tract. 27. in Joan. Nec cognoſcare, nec credere valemus. and afterwards believe, we become both Ignorant and Incredulous.

And our B. Saviour adds the heavy burden of Condemnation, Mark c. 16. as we read in St. Mark, Who will not Believe, ſhall be Condemned.

This is ſufficient to ſhew, that Reaſon in matters of Religion ought to take her information, not from Senſe, but from the propoſal of God and Divine Scriptures. Now I examin;

Whether Scripture Authoriſe Tranſubſtantiation?

You ſay we pretend for this Doctrin the Authority of Scripture in thoſe words of our Saviour, this is my Body. So likewiſe do we pretend for the ſame Doctrin, the Authority of Scripture from the 6 Chapter of St. John, which you paſſing over in ſilence as inconſiderable, I ſhall endeavor to manifeſt, as of great importance.

Let us not mix confuſedly the thing which our Saviour promiſes to give, and the manner of receiving the Gift. A worthy receiving the Gift▪ is Spiritually by Faith. This is not conteſted. The Queſtion is, What is the thing promiſed to be given, whether the true Body of Chriſt or not?

Our Saviour gives two Promiſes, both of the ſame thing, his own Subſtance; both contained in the 51 verſe of St. John, the Bread that I will give, is my Fleſh; behold the Promiſe of himſelf, John 6. from the Greek. in the Sacrament: And, which I will give for the life of the World, intimates the Promiſe of himſelf to the Croſs. The Promiſes are diſtinguiſhed; the Subſtance is the ſame; becauſe the ſame Spirit of Truth which delivers two Promiſes, aſſures one Subſtance. What is then this Bread which Chriſt promiſed to give in the Sacrament? Chriſt anſwers it is my Fleſh, and that Fleſh which he will give for the life of the World. Was this a piece of Bread, or the true ſubſtantial Body of Chriſt?

This is peculiarly ſeconded from our Saviours appeaſing the murmur of the Capharnait's, and raiſing their Incredulity to the Myſtery of his Fleſh, by preſaging the reſuſcitation of his own dead Body, What if ye ſhall ſee the Son of Man aſcend up where he was before? verſ. 62.

If I ſhould now return your Senſe of the Sacrament for a reply to our B. Saviour, and ſay, we underſtand the Promiſe given of your Fleſh, to be Eaten in Figure only, not in Subſtance; would not the Reader ſtraight ſubſume, Then only the Figure of his Body aſcended into Heaven, and ſo void our B. Saviours Argument, and deſtroy the Miraculous Aſcenſion?

Another diſcontent ſucceeding among the Jews, cauſed our Saviour to inſtance once more the Power of his Divinity. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Fleſh profiteth nothing. This Spirit verſ. 63. they were promiſed to receive in the Sacrament, and this Spirit is truly Chriſt, God and Man.

The Fleſh profiteth nothing, if we believe St. Auſtin; as Science, according to St. Paul, puffeth up: Science all alone, barren of Charity; for ſo properly, St. Aug. tract. 27. in Joan. Accedat Spiritus ad carnem, quomodo accedit Charitas ad Scientiam & prodeſt plurimum: nam ſi caro nihil prodeſſet, verbum caro non fieret. St. Paul 1. Cor. 8. Scientia inflat. Science puffeth up. Add Charity to Science with the Divine Apoſtle, and then Science Flouriſhes and is Fruitful. The Body of Chriſt as a mortal and fading Creature profiteth nothing. Joyn God to Man, and the Fleſh of Chriſt profiteth exceedingly. Thus it profited on the Croſs, and profiteth in the Sacrament.

St. Cyril of Alexandria giving the ſame literal Expoſition, ſays, when Christ called himſelf St. Cyr. 6. in Joan. lib. 4. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . Spirit, he did not by this deny, that he was Fleſh; and ſo concludes, that this Spirit was Christ himſelf.

If this Spirit then be Chriſt, who Promiſed to give in the Sacrament, what he Promiſed to give for the life of the World, on the Croſs; who will queſtion that he did not perform what he promiſed? Or would promiſe what he could not effect? 'Tis dangerous to limit the Power of the Deity; 'tis impious to queſtion the Promiſe of God.

And yet alas! ſome Men are ſo enamoured with what they can feel to have ſome Subſtance in it, that Idolizing with Senſe, they are not ſenſible how Chriſt promiſed to give himſelf in the Sacrament; they queſtion the very Gift it ſelf, and endeavor to make good theſe two things,

1ſt. That there's no neceſſity of underſtanding theſe words of our Saviour, This is my Body, in the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation.

2ly. That there is a great deal of Reaſon to underſtand them otherwiſe. Theſe two general Arguments deſerve to be the Subject of two Chapters.

CHAP. I. Of the neceſſity of underſtanding our Saviours Words in the Senſe of Tranſubſtantiation.

IF there be any ſuch neceſſity; you pretend it muſt be, either 1ſt. Becauſe there are no Figurative expreſſions in Scripture, or elſe becauſe a Sacrament admits of no Figure. 2ly. You are willing to stand to the plain conceſſion of a great Number of the moſt Learned Writers of the Church of Rome in this controverſie. Theſe two main Proofs ſhall be conſidered in the following Articles.

Article 1. Examen of your Firſt Proof.

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

FIRST MOTIVE.

The Written Law ſhadowed future Truth, and this Truth was Chriſt. So we read Moſes ſprinkled with Blood, the Book, and People, ſaying, This is the Blood of the Teſtament which God Exod. 24. Heb. 9. v. 20. 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. Luke 22.

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: 'Twould aſtoniſh us, finding the three Evangeliſts with St. Paul (who teſtifies he received the ſame Doctrin from revelation) St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11. 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 Joan. in Evang. c. 1. Union. I believe the conſubſtantiality of the Son with the Father, Joan. 10. v. 30. Ep. 1. Joan. cap. 5. 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) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 (or as others read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . St. Ignat. Ep. ad Smyrnaeos. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . St. Juſt. Apol. 2. in the end. 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) 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 'tis 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 Tertull. de Reſurr. Carnis, c. 8. Caro Corpore & Sanguine Chriſti veſcitur, ut Anima de Deo ſaginetur. 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 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . St. Cyr. Hier. Catech. 4. Myſtag. 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 Gauden. Epiſ. Breſſ. Tract. 2. in Exod. De Pane rurſus, quia & poteſt & promiſit, efficit proprium Corpus; & quia de Aqua Vinum fecit, de Vino Sanguinem facit. 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 Lib. 4. de Fide, c. 5. In carnem transfigurantur & Sanguinem. the Sacraments, which by the Myſtery of Prayer are transfigurated into Fleſh and Blood; witneſs this Speech of St. Gregory Nyſſene. I properly believe St. Greg. Nyſſ. Tom. 3. Orat. Cat. c. 37. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 Syn. Aegypt. Prov. Alex. Profeſſ. Fid. Tom. 3. Conc. General. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 'twas his own Body, which under Seſſ. 13. c. 4. Ideo perſuaſum ſemper in Eccleſia Dei fuit. 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 St. Aug. Apud St. Fulgen. & de diverſ. Dicuntur Sacramenta quia aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. 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. St. Paul, Heb. 1. v. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . The Divine Son is a Figure of his Father's Subſtance: and who can wreſt from him the ſame Subſtance with his Eternal Father? 'Tis 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 1 Cor. 11. 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 St. Luke 22. my Blood, is equivalent to, this Blood, and ſo the Cup is Blood. If you ſuſpect the ſuppoſal, harken how St. Matthew Phraſes it, Matth. 26. Mark 14. 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, Ad Heb. c. 9. v. 18. 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. Aug. Civit. Dei, l. 17. c. 10. St. Cyp. l. 2. Ep. 3. ad Caeci. St. Greg. Or. 3. adverſ. Julian. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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 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; 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 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. 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 (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 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 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 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.

CHAP. II. Whether there be any reaſon to underſtand our Saviour's words contrary to the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation.

YOU are ſure there are a great many Reaſons; and are not ſcant of them. Theſe may be reduced to five Heads, Parables, Similitudes, the Context of St. Matthew, St. Paul to the Corinthians, and the Silence of the Apoſtles at the Inſtitution. I follow this order, and examin in ſo many Articles, theſe conſiderable Reaſons againſt Tranſubſtantiation.

Article I. Whether Parables exclude the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation.

'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 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.

Paragraph I. Similitude of Pharao's Dream.

YOU object, Joſeph, expounding Pharao's Dream to him, Gen. 41. 26. ſays, The ſeven good Kine are ſeven Years.

I anſwer: We conſider ſome things as Signs, and others as Subſtances. The Sign is reaſonably called the Thing, and yet it is not, what it repreſents; ſo the Portrait of a King, is ſaid to be the King, that is, only repreſents his Majeſty. But if we conſider a thing as a Subſtance, we cannot in common Language affirm, it to be, what it is not. So Prudence will not give us leave to ſay, a Pen is Paper, becauſe a Pen is not reckon'd among repreſentative Signs. Joſepth reaſonably affirm'd the ſeven Kine are ſeven Years, and ſo Pharao underſtood him that they were ſeven in Repreſentation, becauſe they both knew the diſcourſe was of Signs, as the Scripture teſtifies, ver. 13. And Pharaoh ſaid unto Joſeph, in my Dream, behold I ſtood upon the bank of the River, and behold there came up out of the River ſeven Kine.

Our Saviour's Expreſſion, this is my Body, is as far diſtant from this Example, as the real inſtitution of the Sacrament, from the Narrative of a Dream; and therefore ought not to be underſtood as the like Expreſſion. But what connexion between Pharao's Dream, and the change of Bread in the Sacrament? As much as betwixt the ſame Dream and our Saviour's being Subſtantially Man. If I ſhould then argue thus, as you do, Joſeph called the ſeven Kine, ſeven Years (which Language is uſual among the Hebrews) that is, ſignified ſeven Years, and ſo would any man of ſenſe underſtand the like expreſſion: Therefore when St. John ſays the Word was made Fleſh, that is, was a Figure oſ a Man or Phantaſm, is ſuch a Deduction, that no Language but Hebrew can be able to make it out.

Paragraph II. Of one who never heard of Tranſubſtantiation.

THIS Similitude is very pleaſant, as if we ſhould go to Pagans, to know what is our own Religion. However you believe, that he that never heard of Tranſubſtantiation, would never imagine any ſuch thing to be meant by our Saviour's words. And I believe a great Number of theſe who ſaw our Saviour himſelf, deny'd he was God. You believe the Bread only ſignifies Chriſt's Body, becauſe you will bilieve ſo; I diſtinguiſh what Chriſt diſtinguiſhed; and becauſe he ſaid, this is my Body, I believe it was his Body; and becauſe he commanded us to do this hereafter, for a memorial of his Death and Paſſion, we obey him. Is not this to follow Scripture?

You are ſure it would never have entred into any Man's mind, to have thought, that our Saviour did literally hold himſelf in his hands, and give away himſelf from himſelf with his own hand. And I am ſure, what cannot enter into Man's thought, the Divine power and Omnipotency can, and has operated.

It entred into St. Auſtin's mind, explicating this Scriptural Paſſage, as he thought, in the Septuagint,—he was carried in his hands. Thus to propoſe your Objection. How could this be underſtood of Man? for who is St. Aug. in Pſal. 33. Conc. 1. Quomodo intelligitur in ipſo David ſecundùm literam non invenimus, in Chriſto autem invenimus. Ferebatur enim Chriſtus in manibus, quando commendans ipſum Corpus ſuum, ait, hoc eſt Corpus meum. carried in his own hands? a Man may be ſupported in others hands, none is the burthen of his own hands. The Saint Anſwers: We find not the literal ſenſe fulfilled in David, in Chriſt we acknowledge it, for Chriſt was carried in his hands, when recommending his own very Body, he ſaid, this is my Body, for he carried that Body in his hands.

It entred into the thought of our Bleſſed Redeemer to make uſe of the like Argument, before he gave us the Promiſe, of giving himſelf entirely in the Sacrament. For did he not in that miraculous Multiplication of five Loaves, in the ſixth Chapter of St. John, feeding five thouſand Perſons, give the five Loaves John. 6. in ſome manner from the Loaves themſelves? The Fragments, ſays St. Hilarie, ſucceeded to St. Hill. Fragmentis fragmenta ſuccedunt, & fallunt ſemper perfracta frangentes. Fragments, and always broken, always deceived the Breaker's hand. For the Quantity of five Loaves was given, Raban. de Sang. Dom. c. 3. Minuendo multiplicabantur. and the like Quantity ſtill remained. Which Rabanus thus elegantly expreſſed, they were multiplied by being diminiſhed.

This Argument of our Bleſſed Saviour; if it did not convince the Obſtinate Jews, it ought to prevail with Chriſtians, or at leaſt ſilence them from ſaying, how can he give himſelf from himſelf.

Paragraph III. Similitude of the Paſſover.

YOU compare with our Saviour's words, the ancient Form of the Paſſover, uſed by the Jews from Ezra's time, as St. Juſtin Martyr, tells us, This Paſſover is our Saviour and our Refuge; Not that, ſay you, they St. Juſtin. Dial. cum Trypho p. 297. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . believed the Paſcal Lamb, to be ſubſtantially changed into God, who delivered them, out of the Land of Egypt, or into the Meſſias, whom they expected.

Strange method! and dangerous way of allegation! tending to the depreſſion of Chriſtianity. Our bleſſed Saviour and the Divine Apoſtles verify the ſincere and literal truth of the new Teſtament, as figurated, and ſymbolized in the Law, Prophets and Pſalms: and you ſcrupling this Order, Judaize with the Hebrews, and will have the Law of Grace figurative, becauſe the written Law is full of Similitudes and Repreſentations.

And ſtranger remark of yours, that the Jews did not believe the Paſchal Lamb changed into God or the Meſſias. How could they imagine the Lamb changed into God, when they knew, God Malac. 3. Ego Dominus & non mutor. could not receive the leaſt alteration, I am the Lord, and not chang'd? or into the Meſſias, when change of one thing into another ſuppoſes both their exiſtences, and the Meſſias was not yet born? The Iſraelites only then could believe the Paſſover a bare Repreſentation, to put them in mind of that Salvation, which God wrought for their Fathers in Egypt.

But if St. Juſtin ſay, The Paſſover is our Saviour, would you deſire a more plain expoſition, than the very following words, that is, our Refuge? 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 .

And if this Speech of St. Juſtin, were in it ſelf ſomewhat obſcure, This Paſſover is our Saviour; The ſame Ceremonie delivered in Exodus by Moſes varying the Phraſe of the Paſſover, is a ſure Rule for underſtanding any ſuch like Expreſſion upon this account. For there we read, it is the Lord's Paſſover. The Septuagint Exod. 12. Sept. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ▪ tranſlate, It is the Paſſover to the Lord. Nor was this Expreſſion unknown to the Hebrews, The Paſſover to the Lord.

Paragraph IV. Similitude of a Deed.

YOU tell us that a Deed or Writing under Hand and Seal, is the conveyance of a real Eſtate, and truly and really to all effects and purpoſes of Law, as if the very material Houſe and Lands themſelves, could be, and were actually delivered into your hands.

If our Cauſe were pleaded at the Bar, the Law, it ſeems, you think, would make us the loſers. But if Scriptures be the Sentence, I know not why we ſhould refuſe to acknowledge what God is pleaſed to beſtow on us. He tells us what he gives, is his own Body; why will you not believe him? Corpus meum.

And to come cloſe to your Objection, Do you not by the paſſing of the Deed really and truly receive the Poſſeſſion of the Subſtantial Houſe, Lands, and Revenues in Specie? You would little value the Writing, if you did not. So likewiſe the Sacrament conveys to the Receivers, the Poſſeſſion of the Subſtantial Body and Blood of our Saviour.

Article III. Upon the Context of St. Matthew.

YOU pretend that it was true Wine which our Saviour drank of, and communicated. I Anſwer, not after Conſecration. You 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. 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?

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. had given thanks, brake it, and ſaid, take, eat, St. Chryſ. Hic 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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; 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . do you not tremble at the exceſs of your Temerity?

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.

SECT. II. Of the perpetual belief of this Doctrin in the Chriſtian Church.

I Have already manifeſted how the Roman Catholic Church, rightly pretends as an evidence, that the Fathers of the Primitive Ages interpreted our Saviour's Words in the ſenſe of Tranſubſtantiation. But what Authors have been ſo fortunate in their Writings, that the contrived endeavours of others, have not cull'd out ſome places, not ſo dark in themſelves, as they are ſhaded with ſmothered Repreſentations? Theſe your Induſtry, with no ſmall increaſe, has compacted together. After this great Task, you are pleaſed to ſhew, when the Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation firſt came in. And finally, you undertake to give a Solution to the pretended Demonſtration of Mr. Arnauld a learned man in France. Theſe three Subjects ſhall be the Mattter of ſo many Chapters.

CHAP. I. Whether any of the Fathers are againſt Tranſubſtantiation.

REflection is the cauſe of Knowledge: Diviſion leads to Reflection. I'll therefore divide your ſelected Teſtimonies, that they may be the conſideration of ſo many diſtinct Articles.

Article I. Upon St. Juſtin Martyr.

YOU begin unfortunately with St. Juſtin, whom you make expreſly to ſay, that our St. Juſtin. Apol. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 . 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, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ) our Blood and Fleſh are nouriſhed. What then? Bread and Wine taken out of the Sacrament, nouriſh, according to this Paſſage, Fleſh and Blood, which all the World will allow of. And I ſhall believe St. Juſtin ſays no more, till you can prove it from the Saint's own Teſtimonie. But why do I ſay Teſtimonie, when the Paſſage you cite, is nothing but a bare Parentheſis? I could heap up a great many ſuch weakneſſes, collected out of your Diſcourſe, if the World were not already too much troubled with ſuch trivial Reflections. I'll take liberty to add one more conſiderable, viz. If natural digeſtion can change Bread and Wine into the proper Subſtance of our Bodies, how eaſy will it be to Nature's Author, to change one thing into another, Bread into the Body of Chriſt? Nor can any moderate Man imagin any thing leſs, when the Devil himſelf tempted Chriſt to change one Subſtance into another, Stones into Bread, as a Strategem to find out, whether he was God.

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

Article II. Upon St. Irenaeus.

NOR are you more fortunate in St. Irenaeus, who ſpeaking 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 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, 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 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.

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, 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 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 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.

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.

Paragraph I.

YOU pitch firſt upon this Expreſſion of St. Auſtin's in his Contra Adimant. c. 12. Book againſt Adimantus the Manichee, Our Lord did not doubt to ſay this is my Body, when he gave the ſign of his Body.

Adimantus endeavours to demonſtrate the God of the Old Teſtament prohibited eating of Blood, grounding himſelf upon this Principle of Duteronomy, Blood is the Soul of the Fleſh, thereby Deut. 12. to prejudice that Soul, which Jeſus declared in the Goſpel, was not lyable to corporal harm or puniſhment.

St. Auguſtin replys, the Old Law ſpeaks of the Animal Soul, Signum Animae. and the Words of Chriſt are only underſtood of the Rational. Secondly, the Holy Doctor tells him, that Blood is called the Soul, only becauſe it is the Sign of the Soul. This he confirms (accommodating himſelf to the Language of the Manichees, who were of opinion, that Bread, Corn and Grapes, naturally ſignified Chriſt's Body) with this Inſtance, our Saviour did not doubt to ſay, this is my Body, when he gave (in the Manichees Opinion) the Sign of his Body. The Manichees Opinion was not St. Auſtin's. And he therefore forewarns us to call in queſtion Faith, becauſe he made uſe of Lib. 3. de lib. Arb. Nunquid ideo Fides in dubium vocanda vel diſſerenda eſt. the Manichee's Principle in their own confutation.

Paragraph II.

SAINT Auſtin ſpeaking of Judas, whom our Lord admitted Ennaret. in Pſ. 3. to his laſt Supper, has theſe Words, in which he recommended and delivered to his Diſciples, the Figure of his Body. Language, ſay you with exclamation, which would now be cenſured for Hereſie in the Church of Rome.

I'm confident you are already perſuaded to the contrary. And I know not any Sect, which holds a Figure incompatible with the reality. I ſhall cite two of your Learned Patrons; Peter Martyr ſays, A Figure, as far forth as 'tis a Figure, is not repugnant Pet. Mart. contra Gen. to the preſence of the thing. And Calvin before him granted, a Figure doth not exclude the thing figurated. The Lutherans are Luth. Admonit. ult. not of a contrary mind. And if you'll be pleaſed to look either into the Ancient or Modern Divines among Catholics, you'll find the ſame acknowledgment. Paſchaſius formerly gave this anſwer to Frudegardus, inſtancing St. Auſtin's Teſtimony, Theſe are, Replys Paſchaſius, Myſtical things, in which is the verity of Paſch. Epla. ad Frudeg. Fleſh and Blood, and none others than Chriſt's, yet in a Myſterie, and Figure, and the Words of this Myſtery are called a Figurative Speech; ſo Chriſt himſelf is called, by the Apoſtle, a Figure, though Chriſt be the Truth. Algerus illuſtrates the ſame, with this Reflection upon Alg. l. 1. c. 3. St. John Baptiſt, He was called a Prophet, and more than a Prophet. So the Sacrament is a Figure, and more than a Figure. To theſe I add of the Modern Catholic Schoolmen. Art. 13. Ruardus, Sup. Auch. Melderus, L. 1. de Eucha. cap. 32. Cardinal Alen, 3. p. d. 46. Sect. 4. Suarez, Contro. 3. cap. 9. Gordon, Sup. Auch. St. Aug. de S. Virg. Gonet. And I never read any that held the contrary. And I conclude with this of St. Auſtin; The Bleſſed Virgin did not onely conceive Chriſt ſpiritually by Faith, conſenting to the Angelical Salutation, but alſo conceived him corporally, in her own Womb. How then doth the ſpiritual reception by Faith exclude the ſubſtantial Communion of Chriſt's Body in St. Auſtin's Opinion?

Paragraph III.

IN the Third Place you cite his Comment on the 98th Pſalm, where treating of the ſcandal which the Diſciples took at that ſaying of our Saviour, except ye eat the Fleſh of the Son of man, and drink his Blood, he brings in our Saviour ſpeaking thus to them, ye muſt underſtand ſpiritually, what I have ſaid unto you, ye are not to eat this Body which ye ſee, and to drink this Blood which ſhall be ſhed by thoſe that ſhall crucify me, I have commended a certain Sacrament to you, which being Spiritually underſtood, will give you Life.

This is as much as to ſay, be not ſcandalized, that I told you, ye ſhall eat my Fleſh, and drink my Blood, ye ſhall not eat it as ye imagine, in the ſhape you ſee it, bruzing, cutting, digeſting my Fleſh. I Speak of a Sacrament, when I commend the eating of my Body; 'Tis this Sacrament you ſhall taſt, touch, and ſee in outward appearance. The Spiritual intelligence by Faith will (diſcovering there my Body remaining inviſibly) vivify you. What more conformable to the Doctrine of Tranſubſtantiation?

This I ſhall endeavour to manifeſt in examining the ſenſe of theſe two Propoſitions, which contain the force of your Argument. 1. Ye muſt underſtand ſpiritually what I have ſaid. 2. Ye are not to eat the Body which ye ſee.

The Word Spiritually, excluding the Carnal ſenſe of the Capharnaits, eſtabliſhes a miraculous or a ſupernatural underſtanding. So when St. Paul ſays, Iſaac was born according to the Gal. 4. 29. Spirit, He did not deny by this, that Iſaac was born of the Fleſh; but declared that the Power of God was required to fecundate the barrenneſs of his Mother. In like manner, when St. Auſtin names this Word Spiritually, or Word of Spirit, he does not deny that the Bread is Fleſh, but intimates that the power of God is required to quicken Bread into the Body of Chriſt. And thus the firſt Propoſition, Ye muſt underſtand what I have ſaid ſpiritually, does not at all diminiſh the reality of Chriſt's Subſtance in the Sacrament.

The Second Propoſition, Ye are not to eat this Body which ye ſee, properly denotes the Quality or divers exiſtence of Chriſt's Body. Thus St. Ambroſe ſaid that the change of Life is ſufficient to verify this Speech, I am not I, I juſtified, am not I a ſinner, L. 2. de Paenia, c. 20. Ego non ſum ego. and yet I am the ſame man in ſubſtance.

Thus St. Lanfrancus anſwered Berengarius, alledging the ſame Paſſage which you object out of St. Auſtin, 'Tis not the ſame, if we conſider the manner of Chriſt's L. Averſ. Bereng. exiſtence in the Sacrament, 'tis the ſame if we regard Idem quoad ſubſtantiam, non idem quoad modum. the Subſtance.

Thus the very ſame Paſſage is cited in Gratian with this addition, Ye are not to eat this Body which ye ſee, I have recommended a certain Apud Gratian. de Conſecratioue, d. 11. Sacrament to you, which being Spiritually underſtood Ipſum & non ipſum, Ipſum inviſibiliter & non ipſum viſibiliter. will give you Life, ye are to eat him, and not to eat him, ye are to eat him viſibly (under the ſpecies of Bread) ye are not to eat him viſibly in the ſhape of Fleſh.

And leſt we ſhould doubt of the reality of his Fleſh in the Sacrament, St. Auſtin has left us this invincible Argument, in the ſame Place of your Objection, He will (ſays this Father) give us that Fleſh, which he received from Mary, in which he walked on Earth, and De Carne Mariae Carnem accepit, in ipſa Carne hic ambulavit, & ipſam Carnem nobis manducandum dedit, nemo illam Carnem manducat niſi prius adoraverit. which is firſt to be adored, before we receive it. Language which the Church of England will cenſure for Hereſie!

Paragraph IV.

YOU inſtance this Teſtimony, According to that Fleſh which Tract. 5. in John. was born of the Virgin Mary, ye ſhall not have me, He is aſcended up into Heaven and is not here.

The forementioned Solution ſatisfies this Objection, for we are not to have him in his Natural Exiſtence, we are to receive him in a Sacramental Exiſtence.

Thus the variation of ſtate and change of life cauſed the great Apoſtle to ſay, there were two Bodys in man, The Animal Body, 1 Cor. 15. and the Spiritual Body; The Animal Body is a poor Paſſenger upon Earth, ſtrugling with Paſſions, and reſtleſs Agitations. The Spiritual Body, is the glorified Corps, when Soul and Body meet in Eternity. It is ſown a Natural Body, ſays St. Paul, it Epl. 146. Seminatur corruptibile ſurget incorruptibile. ſhall riſe a Spiritual Body. Which St. Auſtin thus expreſſes, It is ſown a Corruptible Body, it riſes an Incorruptible Body.

The divers exiſtence of Chriſt's Fleſh, in Heaven, and on the Croſs, was ſufficient to St. Jerom, to call it a Divine Body, Cap. 1. ad Eph. Aliam & aliam. and a Terrene Body. Theſe two Bodies are but one in Subſtance, the ſame in Heaven, the ſame on the Croſs, the ſame which the Virgin brought forth, and the ſame in the Sacrament, Who eats, ſays St. Auſtin, of this Fleſh let him firſt adore it. Adoration teſtifies what it is.

Paragraph V.

YOU alledge this Similitude from St. Auſtin, As the Sacrament of the Body of Chriſt is in ſome manner or ſenſe Chriſts Body, Ep. 23. ad Bonifacium. and the Sacrament of his Blood, is the Body of Chriſt, ſo the Sacrament of Faith, (meaning Baptiſm) is Faith, which the gloſs, De Conſecratione 2. hoc eſt. of the Canon Law, thus expounds. It's called the Body of Chriſt, that is, it ſignifies the Body of Chriſt.

Boniface inquiring how Infants, when they are baptized, are ſaid to believe, and renounce the Devil, was thus inſtructed by St. Auſtin; A Sacrament, or holy ſign, is honoured for the moſt part with the names of the things themſelves, by reaſon of which Similitude the Sacrament of Faith, (Baptiſm) may be called Faith, which Infants receiving are ſaid to believe. This Anſwer exacting a confirmation, obliged the holy Prelate, pitching upon the Similitude of the Sacrament, to caſt his Eyes preciſely on the ſole outward appearance of the Symbols, which in ſome manner or ſenſe, are Chriſt's Body and Blood. Not according to the truth of the thing, as the Gloſs notes; or as St. Anſelme exxpreſſes, the viſible appearance of Bread is not the Body of the Lord, except as the Canon St. Anſel. Tract. de Sacram. Altaris, c. 1. Similitudo illa Panis per ſe inſpecta non eſt Corpus Domini. Law expounds it, improperly and after ſome manner, as it ſignifies and contains the Body of Chriſt.

What is ſignified or contained is the Myſterie, which is not prejudiced by the foregoing Speech? For a Myſterie properly ſpeaking, is ſome inviſible thing. Such is that of St. Paul, If I know all Myſteries or hidden St. Paul, 1 Cor. 17. things. And the Roman Orator expreſſed Si noverim Myſteria omnia. 3. De Oratore. Hoc tacitum tanquam Myſterium teneas. himſelf after the ſame manner, when he ſaid, Keep this ſecret, as a Myſtery.

The viſible appearance then of Bread, though not the true Body of Chriſt, may be called improperly Chriſt's Body; and yet the thing ſignified or contained under this appearance be the true Body of Chriſt. Or as Faith infuſed by baptiſmal regeneration, to uſe St. Auſtin's compariſon, is true Faith; ſo the thing received in the Sacrament, is the true Body of Chriſt.

Paragraph VI.

YOU add this remarkable Paſſage of St. Auſtin, cited by Gratian; As we receive the ſimilitude of his Death in Baptiſm, Apud Gratian. de Conſ. d. 2. ſect. utramque. ſo we may alſo receive the likeneſs of his Fleſh and Blood; and ſo neither may truth be wanting in the Sacrament, nor Pagans have occaſion to make us ridiculous for drinking of the Blood of one that was ſlain.

St. Auſtin here delivers the ſtrict Practice of the Church in his days, hiding from the Pagans the Myſtery of the Sacrament; and adds this Reaſon, in the ſame place: If the Diſciples of our Lord could not patiently receive what our Lord ſaid, how will theſe Incredulous endure us teaching Si Diſcipuli patienter ferre nequiverunt quod Dominus Dixit, quomodo ferunt iſta increduli? the ſame Doctrine? But of this more hereafter.

Nor does this Learned Father more exclude the reality of Fleſh, calling it the likneſs of Fleſh: Than St. Paul, ſaying, St. Paul, Eph. 2. Chriſt appeared whilſt he lived, and converſed with Sinners upon Earth, in the likeneſs of Man, deny'd that he was truly Man.

'Tis 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. Ibidem. Veritas, dum Corpus Chriſti & Sanguis, virtute Spiritus S. ex Panis & Vini Subſtantiâ efficitur; figura, quod exterius ſentitur. 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. De Conſ. d. 11. can. 41. Fidelitèr fatemur ante conſecrationem eſſe Panem & Vinum, quod Natura formavit, poſt conſecrationem verò Chriſti Sanguinem, quod benedictio conſecravit. 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. Can. 57. Panis quem ego dabo, determinat quomodo ſit Panis, non ſolum ſecundum verbum, quo vivunt omnia, ſed & ſecundum Carnem aſſumptam pro mundi vita. 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, Matth. 26. 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 L. 2. Contra Adverſ. Leg. & Proph. c. 9. elſe-where in theſe Lines; We believe (in the Hominem Chriſtum Jeſum Carnem ſnam nobis▪ manducandum bibendumque Sanguinem dantem fideli carde, atque ore ſuſcipimus, quamvis horribilius videatur, Humanam Carnem perimere, quàm manducare, & Humanum Sanguinem potare, quàm fundere. 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; In Pſal. 33. In quo tanta perpeſſus eſt. 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 Contra Fauſtum, l. 2. c. 10. Sanguinem quo redempti ſunt. 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 Tract. 27. in John. Tu es Chriſtus Filius Dei vivi, nec das in Carne & Sanguine tuo, niſi teipſum. 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 Gen. 49. 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 Per nominum mutationem mutationi quae ex gratia facta eſt fidem adhibere. 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 Comm in Epla. ad Cor. 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 Cent. 5. c. 10. Periculoſe dicit. 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. St. Aug. Enarr. in Pſal. 68. Quod nulla ſubſtantia eſt, nihil omnino eſt. Whence that of St. Auſtin, What is not a Subſtance is nothing at all. 'Tis in this ſenſe Orthodoxus holds, the ſubſtance of the Symbols remains. And leſt we ſhould doubt what this ſubſtance is, he tells us 'tis 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 Intelliguntur ea eſſe quae facta ſunt, & adorantur & creduntur. 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 St. Hilary. Naturam ſuam amiſerunt. 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 Card. Pole, p. 8. c. 3. de Euch. Cum in Dominica menſa ſit ſolùm Caro & Sanguis, nihilominus Vini natura percipiatur. 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 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, 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.

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.

CHAP. II. An Account of the coming in of Tranſubſtantiation.

I Have already done this to your hand. 'Twas inſtituted by our Saviour. I ſuppoſe then you mean a particular Account of the coming in of the Error againſt Tranſubſtantiation, and by what attempts and degrees it was advanced againſt the Romiſh Church.

The firſt Oppoſers of this Doctrin, were the Capharnaits, who ſcandaliz'd at our Saviour's Promiſe, cry'd out, How can this Man give us his Fleſh to eat? This was ſeconded with the Complaint of his own Diſciples; This is a hard ſaying, and who can hear it? Both were taxed with Incredulity, as St. John In Pſal. 24. & Tract. in Joan. Dux & Antiſignanus. writes in his Sixth Chapter. And St. Auſtin calls them Heretics, Judas heading them as their Prince and Leader, in whom, without our envy, you may triumph and glory. How often have you been incredulous with the Capharnaits, ſaying, How can he give us his Fleſh? How often with the unfaithfull Diſciples murmured, who can endure this Doctrin?

A ſecond attempt was, as St. Paul delivers, made by the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11. Non credentes. S. Aug. Ep. 118. c. 3. Non credentes in Euch. contineri verum Chriſtum. who not diſtinguiſhing the Body of our Lord in the Sacrament, from Bread and Wine, became incredulous, Not believing. Not believing what? St. Auſtin replies, the true Body of Chriſt to be contain'd in the Euchariſt.

A third Eſſay muſt be acknowledged in the Simonits, Menandrians, Gnoſtics, and Marcioniſts, who placing in Chriſt only a Phantaſm, indirectly rejected the verity of Chriſt's true Body and Blood in the Sacrament.

A fourth Oppoſition was from ſome of the Arians, who thirſting after Spiritual Grace, were not ſolicitous for any Corporal Preſence, as we learn from St. Cyril, and St. Gregory Nazianzen. St. Cyril. Alex. in John, l. 10. c. 13.

In the Year 740. we read of certain Heretics meeting together St. Greg. Naz. Orat. 2. de Paſchate. for the taking away of Images, who gave this reaſon; That our Lord having left no Image of himſelf but Bread, which is the Image of his Body, we ought to make no other Image of our Lord. This Conventicle, which then was eſteemed Heretical in the Chriſtian World, you mention, make Orthodox, and oppoſe it to the Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation.

You are here again miſtaken, for there was no Sect of Men who profeſſed at this time in any place of the World your Opinion againſt Tranſubſtantiation. For theſe Heretics taking the word Image interiourly, for the Subſtance it ſelf; ſaid, that as our Saviour deified Fleſh which ſuffered Ex Pſeudo-Synodo Iconomacorum An. 740. for man's redemption, ſo (conſtituting the Euchariſtic Bread, not a falſe Image of his natural Fleſh) he did ordain it ſhould be made, the Prieſt Euchariſtiae Panem, ut non falſam imaginem, naturalis carnis per S. Spiritus adventum Sanctificandum Divinum Corpus fieri voluit mediante Sacerdote. mediating by the ſanctification of the Holy Ghoſt, his Divine Body. Theſe Words, as containing the Roman Belief, were approved in the Nicene Synod. Nor did the Writers of the Roman Church, condemning their Hereſie which pulled Nic. 2. Dimiſſo mendacio tangunt paucillum quid veritatem Divinum Corpus dicentes fieri. down and deſtroyed Images, charge them with any disbelief of the real Preſence, or Tranſubſtantiation.

Theſe Iconoclaſt Heretics indiſcreetly naming the Bread the Image of the Body of Chriſt, gave probably occaſion to the following Writers to diſpute how it was an Image. Amongſt whom Scotus Erigena, towards the end of the Eight, or beginning of the Ninth Century, went ſo far, that he ſaid, 'twas only an Image of the Body. Scarce had he broach'd this new Doctrin, but he was ſtraight cenſured by the Writers of thoſe Times.

Hincmarus accuſed him that he called the Sacrament a remembrance only of the true Body and Blood Hincmarus in Scot. Memoria tantùm veri Corporis & Sanguinis Chriſti. of Chriſt. Prudentius Biſhop of Troy, and Ebbo Prelat of Grenoble, confuted the ſame Erigena. Nor did this Scotus decline the ſiniſter Opinion of Pope Nicholas, in his Letter to Charles the Bald, Scotus's great Patron and Friend. Yet we never read that Scotus ever reply'd in defence of his Error, and ſo ſeem'd in ſome manner to retract what before he had imprudently ſpoken. His Followers were but few, and thoſe too, taught this Error underhand, ſo fearfully, that no body could accuſe them of open Hereſie, or convince them not to be Catholics. Thus this Infant Embrio of Error covered in the Shell of darkneſs, was at length hatch'd and brought forth by Berengarius in the twelfth Age.

Berengarius was born at Tours in France. After he had finiſhed the ordinary courſes of Studies, he taught Grammar and Philoſophy. Then he was made Treaſurer in St. Martin's Church. About the Year 1149, he went for Angers, where he was kindly entertained, and conſtituted by Bruno the Arch Biſhop, his Archdeacon. Here he began to ſow ſeveral Errors; Viz. That Children were not to be baptized; that Marriage might be diſſolved; that our Saviour could not enter in where his Diſciples were, The Door's ſhut; as we learn from Guitmundus, Theoduinus, Januis Clauſis. and St. Anſelm. He added a fourth Error, which is to our preſent purpoſe, That the conſecrated Guit. l. 1. contra Bereng. Theod. Ep. ad Henricum Galliae in Bib. Pp. St. Anf. de Sacram. Altaris, c. 3. Bread was only a Figure of Chriſt's Body. Which, that he might the better maintain, he kept poor Boys to School, educating them in all manner of Learning, that ſo by mony and intereſt, he might have many at his command. But alas all in vain, for this Error no ſooner was vented, but it was oppoſed by many Learned Writers. Among theſe, were St. Lanfrancus, St. Anſelm, In ſuis Libris de Corpore & Sanguine Domini. Guitmundus, Durandus, Algerus, In Exempl. ad Bereng. Adelmannus, Hugo Lingonenſis, Humbertus, In Ep. adv. Petrum B. Petrus Cluniacenſis, In cap. 26. Matth. Euthymius, L. 2. de Sacramento, p. 8. c. 7. Hugo Victorinus, L. 4. Sect. d. 11. Petrus Lombardus. And the ſame Berengarius more than once abjured his Error, which during his life was nine times condemned in nine ſeveral Councils. The firſt at Rome under Leo the Ninth. The Second at Vercells. The Third in the Convent of Brion, according to the deſires of Henry Duke of Normandy, to whom he fled for protection. The Fourth at Paris. The Fiſth at Tours, by order from Pope Victor. The Sixth at Rome under Nicholas the Second. The Seventh at Poictous in France. The Eighth at Rome under Gregory the Seventh. The Ninth at Bourdeaux, under Hugo Bien Biſhop and Legat of the Baron. ad Ann. 1055, &c. See Apoſtolic in France. This we have from the Writers of thoſe times cited in Baronius. The laſt abjuration of this Hereſie made by Berengarius, was real. For after ten years Penance, he died peaceably in the Boſom of the Church. This we have from L. 3. de geſtis Angl. William of Malemsbury, In Henrico 2. Imp. Mathew Paris, Vincentius Bellovacenſis; and what is moſt convincing, we read in an Old Manuſcript, in St. Martin's at Tours, theſe Words, Obiit Magiſter Berengarius, Grammaticus fidelis, et vere Catholicus. An. Dom. 1186. Many of thoſe whom he had perverted, imitated his pious return to the Church, and his Penance. Others more unfortunate, propogated this Figurative Expoſition, and Excluſion of Chriſt's Body in the Sacrament, after the beſt manner, Induſtry could invent, and Craft execute.

Hence you may gather what diligence the Enemy of Mankind uſed; how often he was forced to repeat, almoſt the ſame Stratagems, before the fearful Error durſt publickly appear, or was able to ſtand in any corner of Chriſtendom.

Pray now compare, if you pleaſe, the riſe of Tranſubſtantiation with the beginning of the oppoſite contradiction; and acknowledge without prejudice or partiality, which of the two ought to be ſincerely embraced. Whether will you believe, Nine ſeveral Councils, or Berengarius an Apoſtate, who yet afterwards recanted? Whether the Holy Fathers, who vindicated this Catholic Doctrin, St. Auſtin, St. Hilary, St. Ambroſe, St. Cyril, St. Juſtin, St. Ignatius Martyr; or the Marcionits, Menandrians, Simonits, all Heretics, who deny the Subſtantial Body of Chriſt? Whether laſtly, you believe St. Paul, or the Erring Corinthians; St. John, or the incredulous Jews; our Bleſſed Saviour, or the Contradicting Calviniſts? I leave you to your own choice, whilſt I purſue your third Principle.

CHAP. III. Examen of your Solution given to Mr. Arnauld's Demonſtration.

MR. Arnauld, a learned man in France, pretended very rightly, that it was impoſſible, that our Doctrin, if it had been new, ſhould ever have come in, in any Age, and been received in the Church, and conſequently it muſt of neceſſity have been the perpetual Belief of the Church in all Ages. For if it had not been always the Doctrin of the Church, when ever it had attempted firſt to come in, there would have been a great ſtir and buſsle about it, and the whole Chriſtian World would have roſe up in oppoſition to it. But you have ſhewn no ſuch time, when firſt it came in, and when any ſuch oppoſition was made to it, and therefore it was always the Doctrin of the Church.

It is true, you would fain have me believe, that Rabanus, Archbiſhop of Mentz, and Heribaldus, Biſhop of Auxerre, and Bertram oppoſed this Doctrin with all their might. But what you have alledg'd from their Writings, do not convince me. Bertram indeed ſays, the Writers of that Age talked according to their ſeveral Opinions, differently about the Myſtery of Chriſt's Body and Blood, and were divided by no ſmall Schiſm. But what was this Schiſm? This Schiſm or difference according to Bertram, preciſely conſiſted in two Queſtions. Firſt, Whether there was a Figure in the Myſtery. Secondly, Whether the Bread that was chang'd into Chriſt's Body, was the Natural Body of Chriſt, which was born of the Virgin Mary.

Bertram in the firſt part of his Treatiſe undertook to ſhew, that there was a Figure in the Myſtery, as the concluſion of his Diſcourſe in the end evidences in theſe Terms; From what I have heitherto ſpoken, 'tis clear, that

Bertram de Corpore Domini.

Ex his omnibus quae hactenus dicta ſunt, monſtratum eſt, Corpus & Sanguis Chriſti, quae fidelium ore in Eccleſia percipiuntur, Figurae ſunt, ſecurdum Speciem viſibilem. At vero ſecundum inviſibilem ſubſtantiam, Corpus & Sanguis Chriſti vere exiſtunt.

the Body of Chriſt, which the Faithful receive into their Mouths, is a Figure, if we regard the viſible Species. And leſt any one ſhould impeach him of Error in the Sacrament, he ſtraight added, But if we conſider the inviſible Subſtance the Body and Blood truly there exiſt, Grounding himſelf upon this Principle, that the Subſtance of Bread was changed, and the outward appearance only remained, he could not conceive how his Adverſaries (who, though they faithfully believed with Bertram and the Church, that the Bread was changed into the true Body of Chriſt, yet they deny'd there was any Figure in the Sacrament) could reconcile Quo credunt deſtruere comprobantur, Corpus etenim, Sanguinémque fideliter confitentur, & cum hoc faciunt, non hoc jam eſſe quod prius fuere procul dubio poteſtantur, & ſi aliud ſunt quàm fuere mutationem accêpere. Faith with their Opinion. And this was his Reaſon; For if the Bread and Wine were another thing than they were before Conſecration, they were changed. And if the Subſtance was changed, the viſible ſpecies which remained muſt be a Figure.

Rabanus ſpeaking of the Second Propoſition, viz. Whether the Bread, which was changed into the Body of Chriſt, was the Natural Body of Chriſt, declares, that it was not the Body of Chriſt received from the Virgin Mary in its natural exiſtence, but that it was the true Body which he received from the Virgin after a Supernatural and Sacramental Permanency.

The firſt Opinion which he rejects, he charges with Novelty, Ep. ad Heribald. c. 33. in the paſſage you cite, Saying, Some of late not having a right Opinion, concerning the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord, have ſaid; that this is the Body and Blood of our Lord which was born of the Virgin Mary, and in which our Lord ſuffered upon the Croſs, and roſe from the Dead: which Error we have oppoſed with all our might.

The other, which was the belief of the Church, he thus delivers: God effected whatever he would in Heaven and on Earth. From hence he deduces, that Bread is chang'd into the Body of Chriſt; and therefore adds, it is no other Fleſh, no other truly than what was born of the Virgin Mary, De Sanguine Domini, cap. 3. and ſuffered upon the Croſs, and roſe from the Non alia Caro eſt, non alia plane, quam quae nata eſt de Maria, & paſſa in cruce & reſurrexit de Sepulchro. Sepulcher. And who does not believe this, if he had ſeen Chriſt upon the Croſs in the likeneſs of a Servant, how would he have underſtood he was God, unleſs Et cap. 3. At vero quiſquis iſta non credit, Si vidiſſet Chriſtum in Cruce in ſpecie ſervi, quomodo Deum illum intelligeret, niſi per fidem prius credidiſſet? Faith had prevailed with him to believe? And in the 42 Chapter of the ſame Book, he ſpeaks thus; It is the ſame Fleſh, which was given for thee and for all, and hanged upon the Croſs, becauſe truth Cap. 42. Neque aliam Carnem quam quae pro te, & pro omnibus tradita eſt, pependit in Cruce, quia ſic veritas teſtatur, hoc eſt Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur, & de Calice, hic enim Sanguis meus eſt, qui pro vobis effundetur in remiſſionem peccatorum. teſtifies, This is my Body which ſhall be given for you; and of the Chalice, This is my Blood, which ſhall be ſpilt for you, for remiſſion of Sins.

From hence it is plain, that what is now the very Doctrin of the Church of Rome concerning the Sacrament, the two Learned Authors you have alledged, Bertram and Rabanus, never oppos'd.

But you tell us, though for a more clear and ſatisfactory Anſwer to the pretended Demonſtration of Mr. Arnauld, you have conſented to untie the knot, yet you could without all theſe pains have cut it. If you ſtrive to cut it with no more skill than you have endeavor'd to untie it, the work muſt be the labor of ſome Nobler Champion. 'Tis true, you make uſe of (in hopes to do the buſineſs) Diogenes plain ſtroke of experience o'recoming Zeno's denial of Motion, by walking before his Eyes. Is then the Doctrin of Tranſubſtantiation not the belief of the Primitive Church, becauſe Diogenes walked before Zeno's Eyes? A wilder Proceeding I never heard of from any Chriſtian Divine; and the bare relation of this matter of Fact, is a full confutation thereof.

From the Pagan Philoſophers, you run for aſſiſtance to the Servants in the Parable, who could not give any punctual account when the Tares were ſown, or by whom: Yet it was manifeſt they were mingled with the good Wheat. From hence you haſten to the Civil Wars of our Nation, where at length our King his Gracious Majeſty, Charles the Second of Great Brittain, was happily reſtored to his Crown, without a great deal of fighting and Bloodſhed. From this place you take your journy into Turky, and bring down the Grand Viſier (invading Chriſtendom, and beſiegeing Vienna) who was not oppoſed by the Moſt Chriſtian King, who had the greateſt Army in Chriſtendom in a readineſs.

Whilſt I ruminate theſe Similitudes, I cannot eaſily conceive, how you can joyn our Great Monarch's happy Reſtauration, in a Simily with Tares, where Wheat was ſown, and with the Grand Seigneur invading Chriſtendom, and not give occaſion to the Reader to think you either wanted circumſpection in the choice of your Arguments, or imprudently left a ſuſpicion of your Loyalty.

And I wonder how a man of your great Wit and Judgment, could prevail with himſelf to conclude the Nullity of Mr. Arnauld's ſolid reaſoning from Experiences or matters of Fact, that have nothing at all to do with the Sacrament? Why muſt Mr. Arnauld's Demonſtration be weak and inſufficient, becauſe the Chriſtian King, not long ſince repoſed in peace, with his great Army; or ſome time ago our Gracious Monarch of happy memory, was reſtored to his Crown; or becauſe St. Mathew wrote the Parable of the Tares? All the Reaſon in the World is too weak to make good any ſuch way of proceeding. But to anſwer preciſely to what you aſſimilate them in, (viz. from theſe Compariſons you would prove, that the Controverted Doctrin might ſilently have come in, and without oppoſition, although the particular time and occaſion of its firſt riſe, could not be aſſigned;) Did not a conſiderable part of Chriſtendom with all their might oppoſe the Turkiſh Invaſion? and if all had been quiet, would not Vienna have been ſurpriſed and pilledged? Was all England ignorant of the Reſtauration of our Gracious Monarch; and were there none to be found to witneſs his coming in? were not the Tares, as ſoon as they ſprung up, ſeen and diſcovered? But no body, except Heretics, ever oppoſed Tranſubſtantiation; No body but Rebels rofe againſt the right Prerogative of their Prince.

And what has the Parable of the Tares to do with the Bleſſed Sacrament? The ſame confidence is ſufficient to extend the ſame Compariſon to the reſt of our Chriſtian Myſteries, and proves juſt as much, that is, nothing at all, except Chriſtianity be nothing elſe but Tares.

SECT. III. Of the Infallible Authority of the Preſent Church for this Doctrin.

YOU ſay, the Roman Church made and obtruded upon the World this Article, merely by vertue of her Authority, Seeing not any ſufficient reaſon, either from Scripture, or Tradition, for the belief of it.

The Roman Catholic Church never taught any of her Children, that She had Power from God to make an Article of Faith. But She teaches us, that two Conditions are required for the conſtitution of an Article of Faith. Firſt, Revelation from God. Secondly, The Declaration of an Oecumenical Council. Where theſe two agree, that we are taught, is part of our Belief.

And I ſhall deſire you will only peruſe theſe words of the Council of Trent, which intimate the Reaſon, why the Church of God declared for Tranſubſtantiation; and I am perſuaded you'l believe She did not define this Doctrin, neither warranted with Scripture, nor Tradition. For the Council ſays; Becauſe Chriſt our Saviour truly ſaid, Concil. Trid. Seſſ. 13. cap. 4. that was his Body, which under the Species of Quoniam autem Chriſtus Redemptor noſter, Corpus ſuum id quod ſub ſpecie Panis offerebat, vere eſſe dixit, ideo perſuaſum ſemper in Eccleſia Deī fuit, idque nunc denuo Sancta haec Synodus declarat per conſecrationem Panis & Vini converſionem fieri totius ſubſtantiae Panis in ſubſtantiam Chriſti Domini noſtri, & totius ſubſtantiae Vini in ſubſtantiam Sanguinis ejus, quae converſio convenienter & proprie à Sancta Catholica Eccleſia Tranſubſtantiatio appellata eſt. Bread, he offered; therefore the Church of God was always perſuaded, and this Holy Council declares again the ſame, that by the conſecration of Bread and Wine, the whole ſubſtance of Bread is changed into the ſubſtance of the Body of our Lord, and the whole ſubſtance of the Wine into the ſubſtance of the Blood, which Converſion is conveniently and properly called by the Council, Tranſubſtantiation.

SECT. IV. Of the Neceſſity of ſuch a Change for the benefit of the Receiver.

THE Spiritual Efficacy of the Sacrament depends upon receiving the thing, which our Lord inſtituted, and a right preparation and diſpoſition of mind, which makes it effectual to thoſe Spiritual Ends, for which it was appointed.

As God might without any Baptiſmal Water, without any viſible Elements, have waſhed away the Stains of Original Sin, and given Spiritual Regeneration: So could he have made the worthy Receivers true Partakers of the Spiritual Comfort and Benefit deſign'd to us in the Lord's Supper, without any ſubſtantial change made in the nature of Bread and Wine.

But as we cannot ſay, the Water in Baptiſm, and Symbols are unprofitable, as things are inſtituted by God, and uſeleſs for the cleanſing of Original Sin: ſo likewiſe ought we not to pretend, that the Fleſh of Chriſt is uſeleſs, and profiteth nothing to the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament, becauſe Chriſt without this may give us the benefit or fruit of the Sacrament.

God might have pardon'd the World, if his only begotten Son had not undergon ſo many griefs and anguiſhes, ſo much pain, and that ignominious death of the Croſs. Yet who dare ſay this Fleſh was not true Fleſh, or profited nothing, which redeemed all the World? If it profited on the Croſs, why does it not profit in the Sacrament? And if it profit not without Faith, how can it profit thoſe who believe not?

The very thought of our Saviour's Subſtantial Preſence in the Sacrament, ſtrikes much a deeper impreſſion of Devotion in my Soul, than if I reflected on bare Symbols or Signs weakly exciting Faith in me.

And even when a Terrene Prince viſits Priſons, or in a Solemn Pomp enters the Capital City, his Corporal Preſence cuſtomarily frees many Criminals from Chains, Fetters, and Impriſonments, which the Law would otherwiſe not have granted, nor the King conſented too: And yet one word of command is ſufficient to do greater execution.

SECT. V. Of the Power of the Prieſt.

WE acknowledge a Power in the Prieſt, which is not in the People. All were not conſtituted Apoſtles, all were not Doctors. But we do not acknowledge a Power in the Prieſt to make God, as you calumniate us: we acknowledge a Power in God to change one Subſtance into another, Bread into his Body. Till you prove this impoſſible, (which is impoſſible to be done;) you'll give us leave to believe God is in the right poſſeſſion of his Omnipotency, and loſes nothing of his Power by your Detraction. And if you count this Miraculous change no Miracle, give it what Title you pleaſe; we will not diſpute the Name, if you contradict not the thing.

And thus I have diſpatched the firſt part of my Anſwer, which was to vindicate the real Grounds and Reaſons of the Church of Rome, for this Doctrin.