the manner for the Defender thinks it is a plain Contradiction Defence pag 61. that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal but as to the nature of the thing it self but yet it is real too A Jargon What kind of Jargon is this and what Absurdities must needs follow from such palpable Contradictions Christ is really present §. 69. Pag. 60. line 32. says the Defender in the Sacrament in as much as they who worthily receive it have thereby really conveyed to them our Saviour Christ and all the Benefits of that Body and Blood whereof the Bread and Wine are the outward Signs and therefore it is more than a meer Figure One would think this enough Oh but his Body is not there How is Christ there and not his Body Yes his Body is not there after the manner that the Papists imagine there is no corporeal Presence of Christs natural Flesh and Blood Rulric at the end of the Communion Office. for his Body is only in Heaven and it is against the Truth of Christs Natural Body to be at one time in more places than one How is it then that he is there will you acknowledge Casâ—â—b Epist ad â—â—rd Pâ—â—en with King James the First that you believe a Presence no less true and real than Catholics do only you are ignorant of the manner If so tell us and recal what you have said that it is a plain Contradiction that a Body should have any existence but what alone is proper to a Body i. e. Corporeal I suppose you mean with all the qualities of a natural Body seeing it may be there after a manner which you are ignorant of No this would be to give up the Cause to Catholics And further the late Church Rubric whose Fate has been so various and the * I A B. Do solemnly and sincerely in the Presence of God profess testify and declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper there is not any Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ at or after the Consecration thereof by any person whatsoever and that the Sacrifice of the Mass as it is now used in the Church of Rome is Superstitious and Idolatrous 30 Car. 2. Test The Church of England has altered her Doctrin since King James the first time contradict the Religion professed in that Kings days for now at least you know by a new Revelator that the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ is not there by Transubstantiation otherwise you would not impose the belief of it upon all persons in any public Employments and make them swear and subscribe to it under such forfeitures and penalties This is the Doctrin we are invited to believe which how inconsistent it is with it self appears to every one who rightly apprehends the Terms of Real and Spiritual and Figurative Let us now see what is the Doctrin of Roman Catholics The Council of (a) Sess 13. c. 4. Trent tels us §. 70. The Roman Catholic Doctrin that because Christ our Redeemer did truly say that that was his Body which he offered under the species of Bread therefore it was always believed in the Church of God and this Holy Synod does now again declare it that by the Consecration of Bread and Wine there is made a conversion or change of the whole substance of Bread into the substance of the Body of Christ and of the whole substance of Wine into the substance of his Blood which change is conveniently and properly called by the Catholic Church Transubstantiation And the same (b) Ib. can 1. Council pronounces an Anathema against all those who shall deny the Body and Blood together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ to be truly really and substantially contained in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist or that shall affirm it to be there only as in a Sign or in Figure or Vertue Thus we believe a true real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament that is of his Body and Blood Soul and Divinity The Lutherans agree with us in it but will have Bread to remain too which we deny And the Calvinists seem at least in words to confess the same but will have the presence to be Spiritual by which as I told them if they intend only that Christs presence is not there after a natural circumscribed corporeal extensive manner we admit of it but if they mean by this spiritual manner that Christ who is both God and Man is not truly really essentially substantially present we deny it They who affirm §. 71. Three manners of a Real presence as we do that Christs Body is really present in the Sacrament Propose several ways by which they think it may be done all which may be reduced to Three First that his Body may be present together with the Bread as Fire is together with Iron when red hot Water with Ashes c. Secondly present so as that the Bread remaininig Bread is also the true Body of Christ Or Thirdly that the Substance of the Body of Christ should be there the Substance of Bread ceasing to be As to the first the words of the Institute are against it For if Christ had rendred his Body present after that manner he would not have said Hoc est corpus meum but Hîc est corpus meum Here is my Body The second manner is acknowledged by English Protestants to be wholy impossible as implying a manisest Contradiction that it should be Bread and not Bread the Body of Christ and not the Body of Christ The third is the true Catholic Doctrin and is called by the Church Transubstantiation that is a Conversion of the whole substance of Bread into the true Body and of the whole substance of the Wine into the Blood as I have mentioned from the Council And thus Christ is really present in the Sacrament Now this existence of Christs Body in the Sacrament is not after a natural corporeal extensive manner because it is neither visible nor palpable But yet for all this the same substantial Body may be really present after a spiritual manner in the Sacrament We have Examples of this from Holy Writ For if we doubt not but that he could free his Body from being visible palpable and heavy and could make it so spiritual as to pass from his Virgin mothers Womb without breach of her Virginity and through the Doors when shut can we doubt his Power in rendring it present without local extension or the other qualifications of a common natural Body And tho' this presence cannot be called spiritual in a strict sense yet may it be so called in that sense which St. Paul uses when he tels us that the Body is sown a corruptible Body and is raised a spiritual Body As to those seeming Contradictions of a Bodies
the Defender need not fear that St. Chrysostom should lose his credit amongst us or that we shall henceforth begin to lessen his Reputation since we cannot any longer suppress his Doctrin No no neither he nor Theodoret were against the Doctrin of the Real and Substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament tho' our Adversaries by all their Arts endeavor to draw one obscure passage out of either of them as favoring their opinion As for St. Chrysostom I must tell the Defender with Bigotius Integrum librum conficerem si ex Chrysostomo locos omnes excerperem in quibus de Sacratissima Eucharèstia similiter loquitur sed laetius ac salubrius tibi erit eos in fonte legisse that should I extract all the places out of his works in which he uses the like plain expressions of the Real presence it would make a Book by it self They who desire farther satisfaction may go to the Fountain it self and if they will but spend some sew hours in a Library and there Read entirely and not by parcels his 83 Hom. in Mattb. his 21 Hom. in Act. and his 24 in 1 Cor. they will there find how contrary St. Chrysostoms opinion is to what the Defender would make us believe (a) Expost Doctr. Ch. of Eng. p. 56. His next Argument is from the Schoolmen §. 84. Argument from Schoolmen who as he says and cites these Authors in the (b) Lomb. 4. dist 10. Scotus 4. dist 2. qu. 11. Margent for it confess that there is not in Scripture any formal proof of Transubstantiation (c) Bellarm. de Euch. l. 3. c. 13. ss secundo dicit where he cites many others of the same opinion That there is not any that withot the Declaration of the Church would be able to evince it (d) Cajeta◠in 3. D. Th. qu. 75. Art. 1. That had not the Church declared her self for the proper sense of the words the other might with as good warrant have been received (e) See Scotus cited by Bellarmin lib. 3. de Euch. c. 23. ss Vnum tamen See also Gabricl cited by Suarez T. 3. disp 50. Sect. 1. So Lembard l. 4. sent dist 11. lit A. And that this Doctrin was no matter of Faith till the Council of Lateran 1200 Years after Christ and that had not That and the Council of Trent since interposed it would not have been so to this very day In answer to this Argument I told him first Vindi◠pag. 80. that if the Schoolmen used those Expressions that There was no formal proof in Scripture for Transubstantiation which could evince it without the Declaration of the Church it is but what they also affirm as to the Trinity and consubstantiality of the Son nay even as to all the Principal Articles of our Faith and as to the Scriptures themselves their being the word of God all which stood in need of the Churches Declaration to make them clear and convincing either to obstinate Heretics who were always ready to drop Texts of Scripture or to Atheistical persons who would rely upon nothing but Sense and Reason Secondly Ibid. pag. 82 83. I desired him to state the Question right and to distinguish betwixt the Doctrin of the Church and the Doctrin of the Schools I told him the Doctrin of the Church was contained in the Canons of the Council of Trent which Anathematised all those who should say that the substance of Bread and Wine remains in the most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist Sess 13. can 2. together with the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ or should deny that wonderful and singular Conversion of the whole substance of the Bread into the Body and of the whole substance of Wine into the Blood the species of Bread and Wine only remaining which Conversion the Catholic Church does most aptly call Transubstantiation But I told him that the Schoolmen tho' they all agreed as to the matter yet might have had several opinions concerning several possible manners of explicating Transubstantiation all which opinions as they were not of necessary belief so were they not to enter as a part of our Dispute with Protestants And upon this account I told him Lastly that he mistook the meaning of our Authors who when they spoke of the matter that is of the real and substantial presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and absence of Bread which is made by that wonderful and singular change of the whole substance of one into the other called by the Church Transubstantiation they were all at perfect agreement asserting it as a matter of Faith always believed in the Church tho' more explicitely declared in the Council of Lateran and other succeeding Councils upon account of the opposition made by Berengarius and his Followers But that as to the manner of explicating this Transubstantiation as whether it were by Production or Adduction or Annihilation Lombard says Cum haec verba proferuntur conversto fit Panis vini in substantiam corporis sanguinis Christi Lomb. in 4. dist 8. li◠C. He also in his 10 dist shews it to have been an Herosy in his time not to have believed that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of ids Body and Blood. Tho' in the 11 dist he consesses he knows isot the manner how this conversion is made See the Vindic. pag. 91. the disputes that might arise amongst them regarded not our Faith which only tels us there is a true and real Conversion of the whole substance of Bread and Wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which Conversion the Church calls Transubstantiation The Reply our Defender makes to this §. 85. A mistake of the Vindicators sense Defence pag. 62. seqq is ushered in with a Mistake grounded perhaps upon my not so cautiously wording a sentence which if taken alone might bear the sense he draws it to tho' if one regard what went before and followed after it cannot reasonably be wrested to it a Mistake I say affirming me to have advanced an Exposition quite contrary to the Doctrin of our Church and design of the Council of Trent which did not only define the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist against the Sacramentarians but also the Manner or Mode as he calls it of his presence in the Sacrament against the Lutherans in two particulars 1. Of the absence of the substance of Bread and Wine 2. Of the Conversion of their substance into the Body and Blood of Christ the Species only remaining But I assure him it was never my intention to deny the Doctrin of a true Conversion of the Substance of Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood of Christ but only to affirm that the manner how that Conversion is made was controverted in the Schools and therefore what he brings against this mistake of
his from Suarez is not at all against me for I am ready to affirm with him that they who do acknowledge the presence of the Body of Christ and absence of Bread but deny a true Conversion of the one into the other are guilty of Heresy The Church having defined this last as well as the two first But seeing I find the Schoolmen of different opinions concerning how this Conversion of one substance into another is effected I may well say that the matter or thing is defined but not the manner I agree then with our Defender that our Dispute is not only about the Real Presence of Christs Body and Blood and absence of the substance of Bread and Wine tho' formerly there was no dispute betwixt us and the Church of England as to this point but also about the manner how Christ becomes there present that is to say whether it be by that wonderful and singular Conversion which the Catholic Church calls most aptly Transubstantiation or no. But I deny that our dispute ought to be concerning the manner of that real Conversion of one substance into another Let us see then whether the Authorities he has insisted upon in his Defence have any force against this Doctrin First he says that Lombard §. 85. Lombard Defence pag. 63. Ibid. Vindic. Pag. 91. Lomb. lib. 4. dist 10. lit A. de Heresi aliorum Sunt item alii praecedentium insunlam transcendentes qui Dei virtutem juxta modum naturalium rerum metientes audacius ac periculosius veritati contradicunt asserentes in altari non esse coryus Christi vel sanguinem nec substantiam panis vel vini in substantiam carnis sanguinis converti Id. ibid. dist 11. lit A. writing about this Conversion plainly shews it to have been undetermined in his time What was undetermined in his time The conversion of the substance of Bread into the subsiance of the Body of Christ c. No. The Defender grants he supposed a change to be made and indeed Lombard is so express in this as I shewed in my Vindication that he says they who deny the Body of Christ to be upon our Altars or that the substance of Bread and Wine are converted into the substance of his Flesh and Blood transcend the madness of the Heretics he had before spoken of and more Audaciously and Dangerously contradict the Truth What was it then which was not determined in his time but the manner of that Conversion This I grant And This the Defender might easily have understood if he would have considered the Title of that distinction which is de modis conversionis of the Manners of Conversion and the words themselves viz. But if it be asked what kind of Conversion this is whether Formal or Substantial or of another kind I am not able to define it They who Read this and the foregoing distinction entirely will see clearly that he was very far from asserting that the Doctrin which affirms the substance of Bread and Wine to be converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ which the Church calls Transubstantiation was not believed in his time and that he only affirmed he was not able to define the manner how that conversion was made But Secondly §. 87. Scotus Defence pag. 64. our Defender says Scotus is yet more free and declares their Interpretation contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easie and to all appearance more true insomuch that he confesses that the Churches Authority was the principal thing that moved him to receive our Doctrin I do not wonder that Scotus should say he was chiefly moved to embrace a Doctrin because the Authority of the Church declared it when the antient Fathers did not doubt to say Ego vero Evangelio non crederem nisi me Ecelesiae cathelicae commoveret Authoritas Aug. Tom. 2. contra Epist Manich. Defence pag. 80. that if it were not for the Authority of the Church they would not believe the Gospels themselves They indeed who as our Author does pay so little deference to a Church that they maintain that if any Man Cobler or Weaver be evidently convinced upon the best enquiry he can make that his particular belief of no Trinity no Divine person in Christ c. is founded upon the word of god and that of the Church is not he is obliged to support and adhere to his own belief in opposition to that of the Church Quisquis falli metuit hujus obseuritate quaestionâ—â— Ecclesiam de ea consulat Aug. contra Crescon c. 33. 1 Cor. 11.16 They indeed I say may think it strange that we submit our judgments in matters which surpass our Reason to the Churches decisions whil'st they refuse such submission but we have no such custom nor the Churches of God. Now where does he find that Scotus declares their interpretation i. e. of the Protestants of the Church of England contrary to Transubstantiation to be more easy and to all appearance more true He brings in 't is true his Adversary not one of the church of Englands belief but a Lutheran who holds a real Presence of Christs Body and Bread to remain together proposing this question to him How comes it to pass the Church has chosen this sense which is so difficult in this Article Et si quaeras quare voluit Ecclesia cligere islum inrellectum ita difficilem hujus articuli cum verba Scripturae possent saluari secundum intellectum facilem veriorem secundum apparentiam de hoc articulo Dico quod eo Spiritu expositae sunt Scripturae quo conditae Et ita supponendum est quod Ecclesia Catholica co spiritu exposuit quo tradita est nobis fides spiritu scilicet veritatis elocta ideo hunc intellectum eligit quia verus est Non enim in potestate Ecclesiae fuit facere iftud verum vel non vertum sed Dei instituentis sed intellectum a Deo traditum Ecclesiâ— explicavit directa in hot ut creditur spiritu veritatis when the words of Scripture might be verified according to a more easy sense and in appearance more true And he answers him in short and most solidly thus I affirm says he that the Scriptures are Expounded by the same spirit by which they were writ And therefore we must suppose that the Catholic Church taught by the spirit of Truth Expounded the Scriptures by the direction of that spirit by which our Faith is delivered to us and therefore chose this sense because it is true For it was not in the power of the Church to make it true or false but in the power of God who instituted it the Church therefore explicated that sense which was delivered by God directed in this as we believe by the Spirit of Truth An answer which cut off at once all his Adversaries objections without entring into so long a dispute as it must have been to shew that Transubstantiation
weigh the reasons which move us to continue in the one and the Arguments he brings to make us quit it and walk in the other To effect this let us divide this Article into three Sections In the first of which I will shew what is the Doctrin which we maintain and what our opposers hold in the second I will endeavour according to my Ability to hint at some of the many reasons why we persevere in that Doctrin and in the last I intend to examin his Objections and shew the Fallacies of his Arguments SECT 1. Our and our Adversaries Tenets WHen we speak of Jesus Christ §. 64. Christ must be either really or only figuratively present in the Sacrament we speak of one who is both God and Man and when we speak of his Presence in a place we must either speak of the presence of his Manhood together with his Divinity by a real substantial presence or we must speak of his presence in a figurative manner seeing there cannot possibly be a Medium For either Christ who is God and Man is there body and Soul and Divinity or he is not there If then he be present in the blessed Sacrament he must be either really present which cannot be unless his Body and Blood and Soul and Divinity be there really and substantially or he must be there only morally or figuratively as signified by the exterior Signs of Bread and Wine and by them bestowing upon us the benefits which he purchased for us by taking our Natures on him Now Jesus Christ may be really §. 65. He may be really present after different manners essentially and Substantially present in a place after different manners For he rendred himself sometimes visible and palpable and sometimes not yet was his Body essentially the same when he was invisible and not to be felt as when otherwise His body was sown a Corruptible Body but is now raised a Spiritual Body yet is this Spiritual Body essentially and substantially the same with that which was once corruptible tho' it was never to see Corruption All Persons §. 66. All agree that Christ is morally present in the Sacrament Catholics and Lutherans that he is really present but not after a natural manner both Catholics and Protestants acknowledge that Jesus Christ is morally or figuratively present in the Sacrament that is that the outward elements signify his Body and Blood that a lively Faith apprehends him there present and that he bestows upon the worthy Communicants the Graces purchased for us by his becoming Man and dying upon the Cross But Catholics and Lutherans agree further in this that Jesus Christ that is God and Man Flesh and Blood Soul and Divinity is not only morally there but also truly really and substantially present in the Blessed Sacrament tho' they both of them deny him to be there circumscriptivè as the Schools call it that is in his Natural Body after a natural manner with respect to place Their chief difference consists in this that the Lutherans will have him to be so present that Bread is also present with him which Catholics deny and tho' they pretend to submit their Faith to the acknowledgment of his real presence which they do not see yet will they follow Sense so far as to judge because they see the appearance of Bread to remain that is is really Bread also when the Substance of Bread is as invisible The Zuinglians c. say he is only figuratively there as that of the Body of Christ The Zuinglians Socinians c. admit nothing at all of real here The presence which they speak of is only figurative signified by the Bread and Wine so that as they see the Bread broken eaten c. and the Wine poured out c. so ought they to call to mind that Christ's Body was Crucified and torn c. for us which whil'st they reflect upon and receive they are by Faith or a strong Fancy made partakers as they think of the Benefits of that his Death and Passion the Blessings which the offering of his Body may procure But Calvin perceiving that if he said no more §. 67. Calvin would find a midle way he should find it an insuperable Task to answer all the plain expressions from Scripture and Fathers would seek a midle way where there can be none and therefore no wonder if he fell into such a contradiction as is that of a real presence and no real presence Sometimes he (a) Calv. Consinsus cum Pastoribus Tigurinis In sine affirms Christs Body to be only in Heaven and (b) Vere in Caena datur nobis corpus Christi ut sit animis nostris in cibum salutarem hoc est substantia Corporis Christi pascuntur animae nostrae ut vere unum efficiamur cum eo Calv. in cap. 26. Matth. sometimes to be truly in the Sacrament Sometimes (c) Porro de modo st quis me interroget faieri non pudebit sublimius esse arcanum quam ut vgel meo ingenio comprehendi vel enarrari verbis queat Id. lib. 4. Instit c. 17. §. 32. Telling us that it is a Mystery that we cannot comprehend much less explicate that Christs Flesh and Blood should come to us from such a distance and be our Food and (d) Interins vero hanc non aliam esse quam fidei manducationem fatemur ut nulla alia fingi potest Id. ibid. §. 5. at other times telling us that this Manducation is only by Faith and the like Absurdities and Contradictions some of which may be seen in Cardinal Bellarmin Lib. 1. de Euchar. Sacram. cap. 1. This Doctrin of Calvin being the most agreeable to the Polititians in King Edwards Reign and to Queen Elizabeth's Interest §. 68. Agreeable to our English Polititians who were desirous to accommodate a Religion to all parties and Factions no wonder if they embraced it And therefore lest Catholics or Lutherans should have any just cause to renounce their Communion for want of a Real presence their Catechism tels us the Inward part or thing signified in this Holy Supper is the Body and Blood of Christ See the Church Catechisim which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lords Supper But lest if this should be understood plainly as the words import the Sacramentarians should be against them therefore their 28 Article has taken care of them too and tels 'um that the Body of Christ is given taken and eaten in the Lords Supper only after a Spiritual and Heavenly manner and the means by which this is done is Faith. But then again if this Article be a Faithful Comment upon their Catechism how shall the Primitive Fathers be answered and what will the Calvinists say To have an evasion therefore and to gain them this presence must be sometimes called a real presence and sometimes only a spiritual A spiritual Presence not only as to
being present in more places than one c. First we affirm them to be no Contradictions A contradiction being an Affirmation and Negation of the same thing in the same time place manner and and all other circumstances but such an Affirmation and Negation are not made of Christs presence in several Hosts See the Guld in Controverly dâ—sc 1. ch 6. § 65 66. seqq And secondly all those who affirm a real Presence as the English Protestants seem to do have the same difficulties to overcome and none but the Sacramentarians who affirm the presence of Christ in the Sacrament to be meerly figurative as the King is said to be present in his Picture Coin or Charter are free from them Having thus explicated our Tenets with respect to those of our Adversaries we come now to shew upon what Grounds we believe them SECT 2. Some Reasons for our Doctrin THe Doctrin of the true real §. 72. All the proofs for an Article of Fatith concur for this and substantial presence of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Blessed Sacrament and the absence of the Substance of Bread is so certainly a revealed Truth that there is scarce any one Article of Christian Faith that Christ seems to have taken so much care to establish as this All the usual Arguments that are brought at any time to confirm us that a Truth has been revealed occur here and by an united Force confirm one another and strengthen our Belief beyond exception If we cast our Eyes into the Old Testament we there find the (a) The Bread and Wine offered by Melchisedech Gen. 14.18 The Bread of Proposition Exod â—0 23 1 Sam 31.40 seâ—q The Bread which the Prophet Elias having eaten by the command of an Angel walked in the strength of it sorty days to the Mountain of God Horeb. 3 Reg. 19.6 The Paschal Lamb Exod. 12. The Blood of the Testament Exod. 24.6 Heb. 9.20 Manna Exod. 16. compared with John 6.49 1 Cor. 10.2 If any one doubt whether these were sigures of the Eucharist or noâ— let them read St. Cyprian St. Ambrose St. Jerome and the other Autient Fathers cited by Cardinal Bellarmin lib. 1. de Euchar. c. 3. Figures of this Unbloody Sacrifice which must necessarily express something more excellent than themselves If we look into the (b) Isaâ—as 25.6 Zach. 10.17 Malac 1.11 Prophets we find their Prophecies cannot be fulfilled in a Figurative presence If we come to the New Law we find not only an express (c) John 6.51 The Bread which I will give is my Flesh for the life of the world Promise from Christ himself but (d) Matth. 26.26 Marc. 14.22 This is my Body This is my Bloâ—d of the New Testament which shall be shed for many or as the Protestants â—ender it which is shed for many for the remission of sin Luke 22.19 This is my Body which is given i. offered for you from whence the antient Fathers conclude not only the real presence but its presence as a Sacrifice Altho Sense tell the it is Bread yet it is the Body according to his words Let Faith confirm thee judge not by Sense After the words of our Lord let no doubt rise in thy mind Cyril Mystag 4. Of the verity of Fiesh and Blood there is left no place to doubt by the profession of our Lord himself and by our Faith it is Flesh and Blood indeed Is not this true To them be it untrue who deny Jesus Christ to be true God. Hilar. lib. 8. de Trinit vers 10 This is the Chalice the New Testament in my Blood which Chalice shall be or i. shed for you 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It appeared to Beza so clear that if it was the Cup or Chalice that was shed for us it must contain in it truly the Blood of Christ and be properly a Sacrifice that he could find no evasion but to call it a Soloecism or Incongruity of Speech or else that the words which yet he confesses to be in all Copie Greek and Latin were thrust into the Text out of the Margent See his Annotations upon the New Testament 1556. Three Evangelists and (e) 1 Cor. 10.6.11.24 St. Paul relating the Institute in such words that many of our Adversaries themselves confess that if they must be taken literally we have gained our Cause If we look into Antiquity and the Writings of the (f) See Nubes Testâ—um from pag. 99. to 150. Conseusus veterum And the many other Books formerly writtes upon this Subject as Gualters Cronology Coâ—cii Thesaurus c. In which you may see a Collection of the plain Testimony of Fathers and eminent Writers in every Age from the Apostles time to our Ages not only concerning this Article of Transubstantiation but most others now in Controversy Primitive Fathers of the first 600 Years we find the manifest (g) All the antient Liturgies are a sufficient Testimony of this in which as Blondel himself tho a Hugonot confesses the Prayer in the Consecration of the Elements was to this purpose That God trould by his Holy Spirit sanctifie the Elements whereby the Bread may be made the Body and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. The Adoration also which was payd to our Blessed Saviour there present shews their Belief See St. Ambr. de spir lib. 3. c. 12. and St. Aug. in ps 98.5 who upon these words Adorate scabellum pedum ejus tels us that Christ has given his Flesh to be eaten by us for our salvation Now no man eats this except he first Adore it And moreover says he we do not only not sin by adoring it but we should sin if we did not adore it See Considerations upon the Council of Trens chap. 16. §. 32. Digress §. 20. c. Also Protestant Apolegy Tract 1. Sect. 3. Subd 2. Practice of this belief If into the later Ages we find for above (h) This has been sufficiently shewn by the aforesaid Authors and Monsieur Arnold in his Perpetuite de la foy and the Plain concession of Protestants as may be seen in the Protestant Apology 1000 Years such an Uniformity amongst all Christians that scarce one person who deserved the name of Pastor that is scarce one Bishop either in the (i) As to the consent of the Greek and Latins see the Guide in Controversy disc 3. ch â— Greek or Latin Church but embraced it There is scarce any Nation in the World in which a Synod has been held since this last 600 Years that is since Berengarius begun to broach the contrary Error but has declared their constant belief of Transubstantiation And the most (k) Guide in Controversy dise 1. ch 6. §. 57. general Councils that those Ages could afford have confirmed it by their Definitions and condemned the contrary Opinions with their Anathema's So that if Councils both national and General have any Authority if the consent
of all Churches for a 1000 Years have any weight If the clear Writings of antient Fathers long before our Contest have any force if Scripture it self both old and new when thus interpreted be of any moment we must necessarily conclude that Jesus Christ gave his Disciples truly really and substantially his Body and Blood under the appearance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament Had we not such clear proofs from Antiquity yet certainly the Consent of the much major and superior part of Christians for this last 600 Years would be sufficient to any reasonable mind who would but consider that if it had not been taught by Jesus Christ those persons who introduced it and those who followed them would have been guilty of Idolatry as the Test and some Protestants now accuse us to be and by consequence the whole Church which taught and practised it during that time would have erred in Fundamentals and taught a damnable Doctrin destructive of Salvation contrary to the Promise of Jesus Christ that the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her But when we find that the Council of Lateran and those others in Berengarius's time were so far from pretending that they introduced a new Doctrin excogitated by themselves or invented by some of their learned Predecessors that they freely and fully declared that it had been delivered to them as a Doctrin taught by Christ and his Apostles that their predecessors in their several respective Countries had taught them the same and practised it that all their Historians and antient Writers had confirmed it when we consider also how impossible it is that if the figurative presence had been once the established Doctrin of the Church the Doctrin of the real presence could have gained such credit that all Christians in all Countries should consent to it and commit manifest Idolatry wilfully against their former belief no one of the Many Learned Pious and Couragious Bishops who were vigilant in opposing the smallest growing Errors ever speaking of this as an erroneous Doctrin or as a novelty I say when we consider all these things which have been so fully and so often proved that nothing but Impudence can deny them how can we have the least Difficulty in believing this Doctrin to be that of Jesus Christ or his words not to be literally true Thus much for our Grounds I come now to shew the weakness of my Opponents Arguments against them and our Doctrin SECT 3. Objections answered BEfore I begin to answer my Adversaries Objections §. 73. I must desire my Reader to consider that Catholics are in Possession of this Belief of the real and substantial presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament and that Protestants who would throw us out of Possession are the aggressors Now as a Possessor of an estate time out of mind is not condemned if he proceed upon a supposition that the Deed of gift by which his Ancestors first possessed that estate was good In like manner must it be with us We believe that Jesus Christ pronouncing those words This is my Body Catholics being in Possession are the Defenders Protestants the Aggressors changed the Bread into his Body we received this belief from our predecessors and they from theirs we therefore who are in Possession and are to defend our right cannot be condemned if we suppose our Belief to be true But as on the other hand an Aggressor is not to be heard if he only suppose the Deed of gift to be void and argue from thence that the Possession is unlawful So ought it also to be with them who oppose us If they only suppose our Blessed Savior did not change the Bread into his Body by those words this is my Body and argue merely upon that supposition they ought not to be heard They are to prove he did not make that change Protestants must therefore bring clear and undeniable proofs against our Possession and not only to suppose it They are to prove his words cannot possibly be taken in a literal Sense and not only that they may be taken figuratively They are to prove that we are obliged to take the words in a figurative sense and not only to shew they they may lead us to it Our Possession is a manifest proof against their supposition and we need no more This being considered let us now weigh my Adversaries Arguments Arguments from Scripture answered And first those from Scripture His first Argument is reduced by himself to this Syllogism If the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body belong to the Bread so that the meaning is This Bread is my Body §. 74. First objection From the words of the Institute then it must be understood figuratively or 't is plainly absurd and impossible But the Relative This in that Proposition This is my Body does belong to the Bread forasmuch as Christ took Bread and blessed Bread and gave Bread to his Disciples and therefore said of Bread This is my Body Therefore That Proposition This is my Body must be understood figuratively or t is plainly absurd and Impossible The Major or first Proposition he tels us is our common Concession In answer to which I say Answered If he understand the Major in Luthers sense as Bellarmin and Gratian do whom he cites for it that is that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body should so signify Bread that the meaning of it is This truly wheaten Bread remaining such is also truly the Body of Christ I grant it for as I told him before from the Cardinal it implies a contradiction for it cannot possibly be that one thing should not be changed and yet should be another because it would be that thing and not that thing But if he mean by his Major that the word This in that Proposition This is my Body has such a reference to Bread that the meaning is This Bread is my Body that is this substance of Bread which I take in my hands I do by these words change into the substance of my Body I deny it neither is it our common Concession for in that sense it is neither an absurdity nor impossibility to understand the Proposition literally So that you see Luther will have no change and will yet have the words to be understood literally and we call that an absurdity Catholics admit of a change and so understand them literally which is far from being either impossible or absurd We argue that the Proposition in Luthers sense admitting of no change is false absurd and impossible unless it be taken figuratively But in our own fense admitting a change is true and genuine and need not be taken figuratively His Minor or second Proposition he tels us is Bellarmins own grant nay what he contends for Is this Learned Cardinal then so great a Blockhead as to maintain that the words ought to be taken literally and yet at the same time to
shall not question whether this be not one of the less faithful Translations in this Epistle because we know not what the word may be in Greek neither will I go about to shew that the Accidents themselves are often said to have their nature and That sometimes called the Nature of the Substance of which they are the Accidents But I must say that if the word Nature in that Place meant Substance or Body so that the sense should be this tho' the Substance or Body of Bread remain the Parallel would have been false and St. Chrysostom instead of disswading Caesarius from the Heresy of Apollinarius would have drawn him to that of Nestorius For Caesarius must necessarily have Argued thus Your Parallel is betwixt the Body of Christ in the Eucharist and the Person or Subsistence of Christ in the Mystery of the Incarnation If then there be two Substances in the Eucharist there are also two Subsistences in Christ But this was far from St. Chrysostoms design His intention was therefore to shew Caesarius that as in the Blessed Sacrament after Consecration there is but one Substance one Body of Christ tho' the Accidents of Bread remain and that this Substance is truly called the Body of Christ so in the Mystery of the Incarnation there is but one Son one Person and that Divine tho' the Nature of the Manhood do remain Now what can be more clear for Transubstantiation than this that in the Eucharist there should be but one Body one Substance and that the Body of Christ But our Defender objects that St. Chrysostom only says it is worthy to be called the Body of Christ and it is called not two Bodyes but one Body of the Son and therefore the change is only in the Appellation and not in the thing it self But certainly if Caesarius had understood St. Chrysostom in that sense Caesarius might have answered him You would perswade me I see to be an Arian and believe there is only a change in Christ as to Appellation and that he is not truly God but only called so But this Great Saint and Learned Doctor was far from erring in these Points For Lastly §. 83. That he did believe the Real and Substantial presence of Christs Body and Blood in the Sacrament and that a change was there made of the Substance of Bread into the Sustance of his Body appears by many plain expressions in his undoubted works Bigotius mentioned two passages in his suppressed Epistle which I will here give the Reader in English tho' the Defender did not think it convenient so to do and add two or three more a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 2. ad pop Antioch in fine pag. 43. B. edit Frontoduc 1616. Elias says he left his Mantle to his Disciple but the Son of God left us his Flesh Elias stripped himself indeed to leave it but Christ both left us his Flesh and retaining it himself ascended Let us not therefore lose courage nor lament nor fear the difficulty of Times For he who did not refuse to shed his Blood for all and has communicated to us his Flesh and also that very Blood what will he refuse for our Salvation The second passage cited by Bigotius is thus at length b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Hom. 83 in Matth. pag. 703. D. edit Commel 1003. Let us therefore every where believe God neither let us resist him although what he says may seem absurd to our sense or cogitation Let his word rule our Sense and Reason which we perform in all but especially in the Mysteries not only looking upon those things which lye before us but retaining also his words For we cannot be deceived by his words but our senses are easily to be deceived Those cannot be false but these are often and often deceived Seeing therefore he has said This is my Body let us not be doubtful but believe and view it with the eyes of our Vnderstanding And a little after he says c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 704. A. How many are there now who say I would gladly see his form his shape I would see his very Garments I would see his shoos Behold Thou seest answers he himself thou touchest him thou eatest him and thou art still desirous to see his Garments And a little further Who will declare the power of our Lord and who will publish all his praises What Shepherd ever yet fed his Flock with his own members And why do I mention Shepherds There are many Mothers who give their Children to other Nurses but he Christ not so he nourishes us with his own Blood and closely knits himself to us in all things d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. p. 705. A. The things we propose are not done by Human power He who wrought these things at the last Supper is the Author of what is done here We hold but the place of Ministers but he who Sanctifies and changes them is Christ himself To these I may add that in his Liturgy the Priest prays e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 5. p. 614. B. edit Frontonduc that God would make that Bread the Pretious Body of his Son c. and that which is in the Chalice the pretions Blood of his Christ c. changing them by his holy Spirit And in his Homily de Proditione Judae he teaches that Judas received the very Body and Blood of Christ which he betrayed his words are these And Judas was present when Christ said these words f 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Tom. 3. Serm. 30. pag. 463. A. This is the Body said he O Judas which thou hast sold for thirty pieces of Silver This is the Blood for which thou hast made a bargain with the Pharisees Oh the Mercy of Christ Oh the Madness of Judas He made a bargain to sell him for Thirty pence and Christ offered him the Blood which he sold that he might have remission of his Sins if he would have ceased to be wicked for Judas was there and was permitted to partake of the Sacrifice g 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. C. For it is not man who makes the proposed Elements to be the Body and Blood of Christ but Christ himself who was crueified for us The Priest performs the ceremony and pronounces the words but it is the Vertue and Grace of God which operates the whole He said h 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ib. C. Gen. 1.28 This is my Body This word Transmutes or changes the proposed things or Elements And as the voice which said encrease and multiply and fill the Earth was but once spoken but in all times by the operation of Nature felt the effect as to Generation So that voice was but once uttored but yet gives a firmness to the Sacrifice throughout all the Tables of the Church even to this very day and shall continue it even to his very coming These things being considered Appendix p. 129.
Hebrews concludes that there ought not only no other Victim to the Offered for sin after that of Christ but that even Christ himself ought not to be any more Offered and makes his Advantage of it Whereas if he had added the next words they would have solved the Difficulty A Falsification For the Bishops words are that the Aposile concludes we ought not only to Offer up no more Victims after Jesus Christ but that Jesus Christ himself ought to be but once Offered up to Death for us But these last words were overseen by our Expositor or he was loath to trouble himself with such distinctions as make for Peace I might also take notice how cautiously the Defender avoids my question concerning what the Church of England holds concerning her Priests whether they be truly Priests or no whether she acknowledge a Sacrifice and an Altar truly and properly speaking or no tho' possibly not in such a rigorous sense as may be put upon the words To all which he returns a profound silence As for the Reflections upon what has been said I leave the Reader to make them himself and hope if he have a True Zeal for the Salvation of his Soul he will seriously consider the premises and heartily beseech Almighty God to enlighten his mind to the knowledge of his True Faith without which it is impossible to please him ART XXII Communion under both Species THe Vindicator tells me § 102. The Vindicators Arguments shewn to be neither faise unreasonable nor frivolous that I advance Three Arguments in this Article from the public Acts of their own Church The first false The second both false and unreasonable And the third nothing to the purpose By which I see he is not unskilled in Multiplication and very willing to cast the Lyer upon me if he could But the false the unreasonable and the impertinent will be found perhaps to lye at the Accusers Door My Argument was but one and I think neither unreasonable nor impertinent He had told me from their 30th Article Art. 30. That the Church of England declared that the Cup ought not to be denyed to the Lay-people for as much as both parts of the Lords Supper by Christs Ordinance and Commandment ought to be adminisired to all Christian men alike From hence I Argued that if the Church of England allowed the Communion to be given under one Species in cases of Necessity she was not consonant to her self nor agreed with her 30th Article which looked upon it as the express Command of Jesus Christ to give it under both Species and his express Commands are certainly indispensible Also that if she did allow it lawful to give it under one kind in cases of necessity the Arguments which the Bishop of Meaux had brought against the Calvinists of France were equally in force against the Church of England viz. that they must not deny but that both Species were not by the Institution of Christ Essential to the Communion seeing no necessity could require us to go contrary to an Essential Ordinance of Christ But that the Church of England did allow her people to Communicate under one Species in case of Necessity I proved from Edward the Sixths Proclamation before the Order of Communion In which I said he had ordained That the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ should from thenceforth be commonly delivered and Administred unto all persons within this our Realm of England and Ireland and other our Dominions under both kinds that is to say of Bread and Wine except necessity otherwise require This he says as thus alledged is False because Edward the 6th in that Proclamation does not ordain any such thing but only says that forasmuch as in his High Court of Parliament lately holden at Westminster this was Ordained Therefore He for the greater Decency and Uniformity of this Sacred Eucharist now thought fit to appoint the following Form and Order for the Administration of it Let it be so if you please that Edward the 6th did not by vertue of this Proclamation ordain it yet the inserting of that Act of Parliament into that Proclamation served as a Rubrick to inform all those who were to Administer that Sacrament that if necessity required it they might give it in one kind And my Argument has gathered strength by being opposed seeing it has now not only a Proclamation but an Act of Parliament to back it But he says it is also unreasonable to Argue as to the present State of the Church of England from what was allowed only and that in case of necessity too in the very beginning of the Reformation If the Church of England had Repealed this Act of Parliament or by some Authentic Act or Canon declared it to be void it might have seemed unreasonable in me to produce it But if this Act be still in force I see no reason why we may not justly conclude that the Church of England holds it lawful in cases of necessity to Communicate only under one Species which if she do all her Arguments against Catholics as if they deprived the people of an Essential part of the Sacrament violated Christs Ordinance gave but a half Communion and the like have as much force against her self as us And if she leave it to her Ministers to judge when necessity requires it to be given only under one kind why will she deprive the Catholic Church representative of that Power And if a natural Reason such as is a loathing of Wine may induce private Pastors not to give the Cup to some particular persons why may not a Supernatural Reason such as is the detection and by that means the refutation of an Heresy not to mention the avoiding of many indignities c. induce such a Church representative to command that which was already practised by most Christians especially knowing that she deprived them of nothing which was Essential to a Sacrament As for the Note I made use of it only as a thing fit to be remarked and not as an Argument against communicating under both kinds However I might justly conclude that if under one Particle the whole Body of Jesus Christ be contained and this Body be now a living Body which it cannot be unless the Flesh and Blood the Soul and Divinity be united They who receive one Particle receive whole Christ and with him his Gifts and Graces that is a full Sacrament So that the first Falsity he accuses me of is as you see a plain mistake I do not say he had no Reason for it because the Printer had indeed placed the Citation in the Margent over against a wrong place but had he considered the sense he might have saved that ungenteele Answer The second Argument as he calls it is neither false in the bottom nor unreasonable And if the last be not so convincing an Argument yet does it not want some force And I will add to