St. Paul proves quite the contrary demonstrating if there be a Testament there must be true Blood and so concludes Whereupon neither the first Testament was dedicated without Blood and without sheding of Blood is no remission Lastly You urge besides his Blood which is said to be shed which was not till his Passion which followed the Institution and first Celebration of this Sacrament We do not dispute with you the actual effusion of Christ's natural Blood which was a sanguinary Sacrifice But can you deny that in those words you alledge from St. Luke where Christ's Blood is said to be shed is contained a mystical Sacrifice St. Austin calls this the Oblation of Christ's Body on the Altar St. Cyprian four times in the same Epistle the Dominical Sacrifice St. Gregorie Nazianzen the unbloody Sacrifice Two Sacrifices we acknowledge with the holy Fathers different in manner not distinct in substance The same Blood spilt naturally once upon the Cross and mystically offered daily on the Altar Because the same Caracteristical mark of true Blood is attributed to both the Sacrifices Viz. the remission of Sins by effusion of Blood. Hence St. Matthew speaking of Christ's Blood in the Sacrament says that it is shed for many for remission of sins And St. Paul in the foregoing lines without sheding of Blood is no remission Article II. Examen of your Second Proof YOU are willing to stand in the second instance to the plain concession of many learned Roman Catholic Writers concerning the necessity of understanding our Saviour's words in the sense of Transubstantiation And because you begin with the concession of the acute Schoolman let us examin what was the opinion of Scotus Scotus distinguishing two sorts or Classes of People the worthy and unworthy Receivers thus delivers himself It is undoubtedly to be held the Good not only Sacramentally but also Spiritually receive the Bad only Sacramentally that is subjoyns Scotus under the visible species the Flesh of Christ that Flesh which was born of the Virgin Mary they do not mystically receive the benefit of the Sacrament This he proves from St. Gregorie the Great 's determination the true Flesh and true Body of Christ is received by Sinners and unworthy Communicants in essence not in benefit Then Scotus quotes St. Austin for the same evidence and concludes with the testimony of St. Paul to the same purpose This acute Schoolman asking afterwards q. 3. whether the Bread be changed into the Body of Christ Answers num 13. that it is changed into the Body of Christ 'T is true he brings in one objecting n. 4. n. 7. that our Saviour's Words may receive a more facile Sense than that of Transubstantiation And Scotus replies the more difficile sense is not to be admitted if it be not true but if it be true and can be proved evidently to be so then the more difficile ought to be chosen and this is the case of the present Article He pushes on the resumpt But why did the Church prefer the more difficile sense when she might have chosen a more facile in appearance I answer says Scotus the Scriptures are expounded by the same Spirit by which they were dictated and 't is to be supposed the Catholic Church expounded them by the same Spirit by which truth is delivered taught by the Spirit of truth for it was not in the power of the Church to make that true but in the power of God the institutor Now what is this to your purpose For if you take the concession of Scotus you must profess both the real Presence and Transubstantiation And this necessarily deduc'd from Scripture Because the Scripture efficaciously moved the Church to declare for the same Doctrin according to Scotus's words it was not in the power of the Church to make that true or not true The Church then necessarily followed Scriptural evidence And what was necessarily compulsive to the Church was not otherwise to Scotus who tacitly intimated the cogent necessity of Scriptures Authority for the real change of the substance of Bread into the Body of Christ instancing it was determined by the Church for Transubstantiation Bellarmin was of Opinion that according to the two literal senses of this is my Body read in the acute School-man the sole evidence of Scripture could not in Scotus's mind abstracting from the declaration and universal practice of the Church evidently compel the admittance of Transubstantiation Bellarmin was severe enough upon Scotus Yet he diminished much this severity saying the acute Schoolman added because the Catholic Church has declared in a general Council the true meaning of Scripture Transubstantiation may manifestly be proved from Scripture so declared But of what mind Scotus was the foregoing Page will sufficiently remind the unprejudic'd Reader Nor can you conclude Bellarmin himself granted evidence of Scripture was wanting for the Roman Cause because he said Scotus's assertion was not altogether improbable In like manner you may argue against the strongest Demonstration in nature You may frankly concede an acute Objection not altogether improbable and notwithstanding this Concession stick fast to the former Evidence of your Demonstration This is Bellarmin's case as the following words out of the same place testifie For although adds Bellarmin Scripture which we have heretofore alledged may seem so clear to us that it can compel a moderate man ther 's evidence of Scripture for Transubstantiation and Bellarmin's opinion Yet the acuteness of bright understandings leaves some doubt This is what is not altogether improbable But we ought to reflect these words of Bellarmin not altogether Improbable are grounded upon a meer supposal of two literal Senses which touches not our Controversie For Bellarmin plainly denies a figurative Exposition probable of our Saviours words speaking of things as they are instituted For thus he argues These words this is my Body necessarily infer either the true change of Bread as Catholics believe or a metaphorical mutation as Calvinists contend This Calvinistical Sense he had already declared as improbable saying we will generally demonstrate that 't is not probable our Saviour would figuratively speak And for the Lutherans Error holding both substance of Bread and the Body together in the Sacrament he says it shares not in the sense of our Saviour's words Thus the true change of Bread into the Body of Christ naturally follows according to Bellarmin from the plain and evident Text of Scripture Durandus divides the substance of Bread into Matter and Form. Then adds the Bread is converted by conseration into the Body of our Lord and the Form perishing the Matter is animated with the Soul of Christ A strange manner of Explication But what doth this avail your cause For if the Form of Bread perishes in Durandus's explication and the Matter be animated with the Soul of Christ the remaining Accidents can neither claim Matter nor Form of Bread and so
the whole Substance of Bread is wanting But Durandus calls your Sentiment holding Bread remains 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 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 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 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. 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 authorities of Saints 't is 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 Canus's authority who says the Body and Blood of Christ was offered in the Sacrifice and 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 'T is possible the Body of Christ may assume the substance 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 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 't is 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 'T is true writ the Scripture did not evidently enforce the Roman Catholic Tenet Great Wits speak sometimes 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 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 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 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
not confess that the Eucharist is that Flesh which suffered for our sins The Flesh which suffered for us and rose again was it a Figure or was it true Flesh If I should affirm that the Language of the Second Century spoke after the same manner and told us that they were taught the Eucharist was not common Bread but was the Flesh of our Saviour made Man and Jesus incarnate would you not reply it was a Roman Invention And yet St. Justin the Martyr leaves this convincing Testimony We do not receive these things as common Bread or common Drink But as by the word of God Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so are we taught that this Food by which chang'd by digestion in our Bodies 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Flesh and Blood are nourish'd Eucharistated or transformed by the prayer of this Divine Word is the Flesh and Blood of that Incarnate Jesus If for all this you should reply that the Eucharistic Food is onely figuratively the Flesh and Blood of Christ then might the Reader likewise aver Christ being incarnate had onely figuratively both Flesh and Blood. For 't is more to say the blessed Bread is the Flesh and Blood of Incarnate Jesus because this Speech implies a substantial change than to say Jesus being incarnate had both Flesh and Blood because this Speech can signifie no more than a substantial Union And to say less in either is to diminish and change the Martyr's Sense If I should instance the Third Age was a faithful Imitator of the precedent so dividing between the Divine Mystery and the Grace of the Mystery that the Body of Man received the Body and Blood of Christ and the Soul was replenished with the Grace of Faith or effect of the Sacrament would you not be surprized at the acknowledgment of what was given in Communion And yet Tertullian furnishes us with a sufficient manifestation of this Truth Saying Our Flesh is sed with the Body and Blood of Christ that our Soul may be filled with God. Again These words Our Flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ cannot be deluded in an eating by Faith because the Body of Man is incapable of an act of Faith. If I should continue the Fathers of the Fourth Century when the Church was beautified and enriched with an innumerable Offspring of Pious and Learned Children If I should alledge how these worthy Champions of Christian Purity forbid Posterity to judge of the Sacrament by Tast and taught them the Body was given them under the Species of Bread and as Christ changed Water into Wine so did he Wine into his own Blood would you not swear this Language was unknown in those times And yet both the Greek and Latin Church conspire in this Doctrin Hearken to that Grecian Prelate St. Cyril of Jerusalem and acknowledge the plain truth of these words Do not judge the thing by Tast but by Faith. Under the species of Bread is given to thee the Body and under the species of Wine is given to thee the Blood. Christ formerly changed Water into Wine and is he not to be believed changing Wine into his Blood Nor are these words of the Learned Latin Bishop Gaudentius of less force Jesus giving to his Disciples Bread and Wine said this is my Body Let us believe it is what he said Truth is incapable of Error The Creator of all Nature and Lord who produces Bread from the Earth made again of this Bread because he can and promised his proper Body and because he did make Wine of Water of Wine he makes his Blood. I know there are several Expressions and Comparisons in the Fathers which only declare a spiritual change effected in the worthy Receiver But do not the foregoing Authorities prove something more a change not in the Receiver but in the thing received and this can be no less than a substantial one For when Catholics argue that as Christ changed Water into Wine so does he Bread into his Body Protestants readily deny the sequel because this would be to profess Transubstantiation If this reasoning of Catholics include a substantial change of the Bread into Christ's Body as you grant how comes it to pass that the very same words and very same reason in the Father's Writings must have quite another interpretation If the Fathers had design'd to have writ for Transubstantiation they could but have said what they do and you might still explicate them in a spiritual sense or wrested interpretation If I should urge on that I rightly profess the consecrated Bread transfigur'd and transelemented into the Body of Christ would you not exclaim these are as hard and mishapen words as that of Transubstantiation and yet many Fathers of this fourth Age after Christ use the same Expressions Witness this Language of St. Ambrose As often as we receive the Sacraments which by the Mystery of Prayer are transfigurated into Flesh and Blood witness this Speech of St. Gregory Nyssene I properly believe the Bread sanctified by the word of God to be changed into the Body of God the Word And this is effected the nature of what appears being transelemented by vertue of benediction into the Body of the word Christ I close up this Motive with the decision of the Synod in Egypt celebrated before the second Oecumenical Council to both which presided St. Cyril of Alexandria These Fathers composing a Creed inserted these words in the end of their Introduction This is the Faith of the Catholic and Apostolic Church in which the East and West agree Then immmediatly follows their Creed divided into many Articles What if their Seventh Article should decree the Flesh received in the Sacrament to be the very Flesh of Christ which made one Person and two Natures in one Son and not two Sons one of God Divine and another of the Blessed Virgin Human as Nestorius Heretically taught you could require nothing more for Transubstantiation And yet these are their words We do not receive in the Sacrament our Saviour's Flesh as common Flesh God forbid Nor again as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man or associated to the Word by unity of Dignity but as the true vivificative and proper Flesh of the Word himself truly the Flesh of him who for our sake was made and called the Son of Man. The Council admitting with Nestorius what was received to be true Flesh defines against the Heretic who pretended our Saviour as he was the Son of the Virgin Mary had not only a Nature but likewise a Human Person and so constituted two Persons in Christ that we do not receive this as common Flesh or the Flesh of an ordinary Person Secondly The Council adds Nor as the Flesh of a Sanctified Man or associated to the Word by the unity of Dignity which excluded that accidental Union by which the Nestorians joyned together two Persons that
in the Blood of the Grape Again speaking to Eranistes he pursues with another Simile Jesus called his Body Bread and his Flesh Wheat But in the institution of the Sacrament he called Bread his Body and Wine his Blood Though naturally the Body is called the Body and Blood is called Blood but our Saviour changing the Names gave to his Body the Name of Symbol and to the Symbol or Sign the Name of his Body Eranistes urges to know the cause of this change of Names Orthodoxus answers Nothing more easie to the Faithful For he would have those who partake of the Divine Mysteries not to attend to the nature of things which are seen but by the change of Names to believe the change which is made by Grace for he who called that which by nature is a Body Wheat and Bread and again called himself the Vine he honoured the Symbol with the name of his Body and Blood not changing nature but adding Grace to nature This is a full view of the matter in debate We ought to reflect that as Theodoretus compares here Scriptural passages wherein they resemble one another and consequently acknowledges the Similitude of the already mention'd Expressions So also was he not ignorant of their differences And therefore he said Jesus changed the Names that by their change the Faithful might believe that alteration which Grace effected The change of names is acknowledged to proceed from a change made in the Sacrament For he obliges the Faithful to believe a change which is made not in the nature of things which are seen for the natural Signs or outward appearances remain it must be then in some inward thing not seen or Substance of the Symbol effected by Grace or the Word of God. This in another place he professes in these Words Christ gave his pretious Body not only to the Eleven Apostles but also to the Traytor Judas This cannot be properly Grace added to Nature for Judas received his own condemnation It must be then the Body of Christ made by Grace of the Substance of Bread and added to the Nature or remaining appearance of the Signs which was given to the Traytor Paragraph II. Upon the continuation of the same Discourse in the Second Dialogue ORthod What are those Symbols which the Priest offers to God Eranist They are Symbols of the Body and Blood of our Lord. Orthod Of the true Body Eranist Of the true Body Orthod Very right Eranist Very well Orthod If these Divine Mysteries represent the true Body the true Body of Christ is not changed into the Divinity Eranistes perceiving himself caught cunningly retorts the Argument in the like manner How do you call these Symbols after consecration Orthod The Body and Blood of Christ Eranist Do you believe you receive the Body and Blood of Christ Orthod I do believe Eranist Therefore as the Symbols of our Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after the invocation are changed and become another thing so the Body of our Lord after his ascension is changed into the Divine Substance If Orthodoxus had not believed that the Symbols were truly changed in Substance after consecration how could Eranistes have deduced the change of the Human Nature into the Divine Substance He could not argue this out of his own principle For admitting no Body of Christ in Heaven how could he pretend a real Body of Christ in the Sacrament whence the Protestant Centuriators say Theodoretus dangerously affirms that the Symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ after the invocation of the Priest are changed and become another thing Orthodoxus answers you are caught in your own net because the Mystical Symbols after Consecration do not pass out of their own Nature for they remain in their former Substance Figure and Appearance and may be seen and handled even as before As Bread is properly said to have Substance and Nature which are neither seen nor handled so likewise the Accidents of Bread may be said though not so commonly to have their own Nature and Substance which may be seen and handled Whence that of St. Austin What is not a Substance is nothing at all 'T is in this sense Orthodoxus holds the substance of the Symbols remains And lest we should doubt what this substance is he tells us 't is Figure and Appearance Nor is this a constrained interpretation For what more usual when we have uttered some word either harsh in expression or difficult to be understood than forthwith to add another softer in Language and more obvious to the Hearer Thus Theodoretus saying They remain in their former substance adds that is they remain in their former Figure and appearance and may be seen and handled even as before Nor are these latter Expressions referable to Substance strictly taken for the inward thing because this properly is neither seen nor handled Now if you ask what these Symbols are interiorly Theodoretus confesses they are what they were made Christ's Body And they are believed and adored as being those very things which they are believed Which Words if the Bread be not substantially changed into Christ's Body teach plain Idolatry Nor could Orthodoxus say the interiour Substance of the Symbols was not changed in his own Opinion for this he had already granted in these Words They are changed and become after consecration another thing Orthodoxus pretends indeed that he caught his Adversary in his own Net. But this was not because Eranistes believed the Substance of the Symbols was not changed into Christ's Body for he thought Christ's Body was no where extant How then was he caught in his own Net He was caught in his own Net because these Mystical Symbols were not changed in appearance for after consecration they may be seen and handled and they were Symbols still of Christ's true Body which Eranistes had formerly granted and therefore there was a true Body of Christ and so the Body of Christ was not changed into the Divinity as Orthodoxus had argued Thus Eranistes was caught in his own Net. Nor ought Theodoretus to be censured for Singularity in giving the Name of Nature and Substance to accidental Beings For St. Hilary gives the same to Proprieties Saying That the Flames in the Babilonian Furnace lost their Nature though the Substance of the Fire remained Innocent the Third that Venerable Pope and Father of the Church under whom was defined the Doctrin of Transubstantiation frankly concedes the Natural Proprieties of Bread remain ut paneitas And Cardinal Pole another great Vindicator of the same Tenet says Though there be only Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament notwithstanding the Nature of the Wine may be tasted I would have you likewise argue that these Authors are against Transubstantiation Article VIII Upon Gelasius the Pope THESE Words of Gelasius The Substance of Bread and Wine doth not cease to be are already satisfied by what I