Saviours words can import no less than the verity of Transubstantiation FIRST MOTIVE The Written Law shadowed future Truth and this Truth was Christ So we read Moses sprinkled with Blood the Book and People saying This is the Blood of the Testament which God hath enjoyned unto you The Blood of the Ancient Covenant was the Figure of the Blood of Jesus Christ in the Sacrament This appears from the words of our Saviour in the Institution This is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many This Miraculous concord of the Old and New Covenant This repetition of the very same Phrase is an Evidence beyond denyal that the former was a Symbol of the latter And since you cannot understand the latter of Christs Blood spilt on the Cross Because you pretend St. Luke says his Blood was then shed which is shed for many which preceded the Crucifiction It follows necessarily to be understood of the true Blood of Christ in the Sacrament Because a Figure is not without the Reality nor a Shadow without a true Body SECOND MOTIVE As it is true that Jesus took Bread so are we taught that he blessed it And what he brake and what he gave to his Disciples was without doubt what he had blessed or consecrated The Question is what this was None of the Evangelists say that he gave Bread they say Jesus took Bread and Jesus assures what was blessed broken and given was his Body saying This is my Body If it was then Bread as the Evangelists note Jesus took Bread and after the Divine Benediction or Consecration became his Body as Jesus affirms this is my Body Then without extorting or racking of Scripture without adding figurative Glosses and wicked is the Man who superads to Scripture the facile sense of Scripture readily leads to the plain Article of Transubstantiation THIRD MOTIVE The Circumstances of our Saviour urge for the Literal Acceptation of This is my Body For Jesus spoke to his Apostles to his dearest Friends preparing to bid his last Adieu and then if ever Sincerity discloses it self without difficulty and after a facile and intelligible Method He 's Wisdom it self and knew how to Phrase his Thought He 's Omnipotent and so can surmount what Human Frailty might conceive as impossible He 's Goodness it self and cannot deceive us And therefore said what it was and what he said was true FOURTH MOTIVE Is the conformity of Scriptures For if Christ had ever design'd to signifie that the Eucharistical Bread was only the Figure of his Body it would surprize us what inclin'd him to make use of this Speech this is my Body and after such a choice to leave it barely without explanation when he so carefully taught his Disciples the true meaning of many easier Parables 'T would astonish us finding the three Evangelists with St. Paul who testifies he received the same Doctrin from revelation not constrain'd nor combining to joyn in expression yet to repeat all the same words without the Least alteration And we read in Latin Greek Syriac Arabic all Versions and Languages nothing but the same expression and equal confirmation FIFTH MOTIVE The very same Interpretation of other Scriptural Passages wherein are grounded the chief Articles of Christian Belief enforces the sequel of Transubstantiation For I believe adhering to Scripture as the Rule of Faith that this Passage the word was made Flesh imports a Substantial Union I believe the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father included in these words I and my Father are one I believe one Divine Essence of three distinct Persons revealed in These three are one Upon these Testimonies of Holy Writ Substantially understood I quietly repose my belief of the Incarnation of our Saviour the Son's Divinity and of the sole and undivided nature of the Blessed Trinity This Method is further secur'd by the consent of all those who are and pretend to be true Members of Christ's Religion Now if I follow this Determination so authorized and so certain if I follow this motive of my own Conviction in other like Articles extending the same uncontrol'd Interpretation to this is my Body I must necessarily grant this Inference this is my Substantial Body Thus my Faith seeks to be one as Scripture is one and God one Truth As this literal Reflection is sincere and pious the figurative Explanation of our Saviour's Words wants no Fallacy nor Impiety For if I may presume to give this sense to our Saviour's Words this is not my Substantial Body this Presumption ought to be strongly grounded as allowable just and in Equity to be follow'd And if so then I may lawfully give the same exposition to the three alledg'd Articles For the Scripture urges not more out of this Passage The word was made Flesh the substantial connexion of the Second Person with Human Nature or out of these words I and my Father are one the identity of the Son with the Father or out of these Three are one the unity of Nature in three Divine Persons than out of this is my Body the Substantial Body of Christ If therefore I might lawfully understand our Saviour's words in an empty figurative exposition saying this is not my Substantial Body I might rightly deduce following the same interpretation then the word was not substantially made Flesh and so deny the Mystery of the Incarnation I and my Father are not substantially one and so prosess Arianism These three are not substantially one and so dividing the Divine Nature constitute many Gods. Can such a figurative Explanation be thought a sincere part of the True Religion which undermines and utterly destroys the whole Fabrick of Christianity And ought not my own Motive in the most considerable Mysteries of Christianity contained in Scripture be to me the same in the determination of the true Sense of This is my Body SIXTH MOTIVE The true sense of our Saviour's words may be gathered from the Doctrin which the Learned and Ancient Fathers maintain'd against incroaching Heresie What if I should now advance that the Successors of the Apostles upbraided Heretics for denying the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ that Flesh which suffered for us upon the Cross would you not look upon it as an invincible undertaking and yet the glorious Martyr St. Ignatius elected Bishop of Antiochia thirty eight years after our Saviour's Passion plainly delivers They certain Heretics whose Names he thought convenient not to mention do not receive Eucharists or Sacrifices because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ which Flesh suffered for our sins and which the Father raised again by his benignity Nor is it enough to say these Heretics could not admit the Eucharist to be a Figure because they deny'd that Christ had true Flesh This perchance is true But it is not here the sense of the Martyr who says expresly that they reject Eucharists because they do
Sinners upon Earth in the likeness of Man deny'd that he was truly Man. 'T is true many Dissenters from the Catholic Church and Hereticks grounding themselves on this Scriptural Passage Christ appeared in the likeness of Man eagerly taught that he was a Phantasm or Appearance not a natural Man composed of Flesh and Bone. And you their Faithful Imitator gloss after the same manner not upon Scripture but upon a single Passage of one Father and this too borrowed from Gratian. But with how little reason you gloss after this manner these following Passages of S. Austin taken out of the same Gratian will farther demonstrate The First is part of the Canon wherein your Objection is contained These are his Words What exteriorly appears in the Sacrament is a Figure the Truth is the Body and Blood of Christ made of the Substance of Bread and Wine The Second Passage is We faithfully confess it is before Consecration Bread and Wine which Nature made but after Consecration the Flesh and Blood of Christ which Benediction consecrated The Third is the meaning of that Passage of our Saviour The Bread which I will give in the 6th of St. John which words determine in St. Austin's mind How Christ is Bread not only as he is the Word which gives all things life but also according to the Flesh assumed for the life of the World. Is this not real Flesh Paragraph VII YOU mention but one more Testimony but so clear a one as it is impossible any man in his wits that had believed Transubstantiation could have uttered It is in his Treatise de Doctrina Christiana where laying down several Rules for the right understanding of Scripture he gives this for one If the Speech be a Precept forbidding some heinous wickedness or commanding us to do good it is not figurative if the contrary it is figurative for example except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you this seems to command a heinous Crime therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate of the Passion of our Lord. If I should deny that St. Austin speaks here of receiving the Sacrament you would be puzled to find out a warrant for your famous Assertion For many Learned Writers judiciously remark that these words except ye eat of my Flesh in Saint Austin's Sense may be thus explicated except ye eat it by Faith by Piety by Good Works which is a Spiritual Communion out of the Sacrament of the Passion of our Lord. And if this be true as it is more than probably so St. Austin says here what all Catholics profess For we all say we may communicate spiritually of the Passion of Christ by Faith believing in Jesus when we receive not the Sacrament and yet we believe in the Doctrine of Transubstantiation But if you will still keep this Holy Father whose Learning has always been the Admiration of Mankind out of his wits to use your Phrase a slight reflection supposing he speaks here of Sacramental Communion will help him to return to himself and reconcile him to the Catholic Affirmation I think one of a mean Capacity can distinguish the manner of eating and the thing eaten Which if true St. Austin may literally understand the thing eaten in the Sacrament to be the true Flesh of Christ God and Man and yet at the same instant hold that the manner of eating this Flesh to which this Passage except ye eat my Flesh has referenee is Spiritual For although the true Body be taken in the shape of Bread into the Mouth and let down into the Stomack yet it is not ground with the Teeth or separated in pieces We are taught after a Spiritual manner to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man. Lissen to the Voice of God and you 'l hear the Gospel mention eating a Man take eat this is my Body The manner is Spiritual for the Body is given in the shape of Bread and in this Sense St. Austin calls these words except ye eat my Flesh a figurative Speech The Substance or the thing eaten is not here mentioned by the Saint But it is the true Body of Christ as the same Saint assures us else-where in these Lines We believe in the Sacrament with faithful heart and mouth the Mediator of God and Man Christ Jesus giving us his Body to be eaten and his Blood to be drank although it appear more horrible to eat than to kill Human Flesh to drink than to spill Human Blood. Every word almost instances a new Argument for the truth of the Flesh This oral receiving with mouth God and Man This horror of eating and drinking Flesh and Blood this Antithesis between eating and killing drinking and spilling terminated to the same substance leaves not the least scruple to doubt that the thing eaten is real Flesh and Blood. And pray what horror would there be to eat an Image of Flesh or what Language speaks of killing the Figure of a Man The same Saint in his Exposition on the 33d Psalm hath this Passage He 's truly our Lord who truly gave us his Body to eat in which he so much suffered Elsewhere he says the Faithful receive into their mouth that Blood which redeemed them And in his 27th Treatise on St. John speaking of St. Peter's Confession I find this remarkable Sentence You are Christ the Son of the living God and what you give in your Flesh and Blood is nothing else but your own self Now you must acknowledge the way I have prescribed or find some other expedient to reconcile St. Austin's Wit with the Doctrine of Transubstantiation or all the World will imagine you put your own to a desperate adventure Article VII YOU mention two Testimonies out of Theodoretus's Dialogues between a Catholic under the name of Orthodoxus and a Heretic under the name of Eranistes who maintained with the Eutichians that the Humanity of Christ after the Ascension was changed into the Divinity I 'll examine each apart Paragraph I. The Dispute of Orthodoxus and Eranistes in the First Dialogue ORthodoxus undertakes to shew that the Humanity of Christ alwaies remain'd This he proves because the Humanity was a Vail or Garment to the Divinity as we read in Genesis where Jacob prophecy'd of the Messias He washed his Garment in Wine and his Cloaths in the Blood of the Grape Eranistes replys this is understood literally of his proper Habit with which he was cloathed upon Earth Orthodoxus resumes that Jesus called himself the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and the Blood of our Saviour is called the Blood of the Vine And if our Saviour be called the Vine and the Fruit of the Vine is Wine and from the side of our Saviour ran Fountains of Blood on the rest of his Body The Prophet rightly foretold that He washed his Robe in Wine and his Cloths
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 in the Second Centurie relates the same of the 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 We believe Fisher-men we do not Believe Philosophers St. Cyril of Alexandria conceived it impossible to believe where Reason intermixes inquiries St. Chrysostom avow'd the very letting of an How can it be is a beginning of incredulity St. Augustin avers that if we first demonstrate and afterwards believe we become both Ignorant and Incredulous And our B. Saviour adds the heavy burden of Condemnation 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 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 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 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 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 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 'T is dangerous to limit the Power of the Deity 't is 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
of the Son of God and that of the Son of Man in one Christ Thirdly The Council declares they receive it as the all-vivificating and proper Flesh of the Word that Word who was made and called Man professing one Person in Christ to whom this Human Nature properly belonged Now if all this were to be expounded of a Figure what wresting would there be of this Article And how could the Council conclude the proper Flesh of Christ was that of the Divine Word one Person and two Natures and speak of neither but of a pure Figure The Sacrament might have been a Figure of the Passion and yet two distinct Persons admitted in Christ SEVENTH MOTIVE The Council of Trent declares that because Jesus Christ our Redeemer truly said that 't was his own Body which under the appearance of Bread he offered and gave to his Disciples the Church of God was alwaies perswaded that this wonderful change was operated by the conversion of the substance of Bread into the Substance of Christ's precious Body and therefore renews the Canon of Transubstantiation And You know that as our Saviour commanded his Apostles to preach the Gospel so did he oblige the People to receive the promulgated Word and be obedient to their Pastors The obligation of this obedience will last to the end of the world and consequently in the mean time will be still due to the true Successors of the Apostles with whom Christ had promised to remain till the consummation of the World. You cannot deny but the Romish Church has true succession from Christ and his Apostles and we are sure you have left this Society of true Successors Obedience therefore to the true Successors of the Apostles who have defined this Catholic verity obliges me in the last instance to believe this is my Body can import no less than the sense of Transubstantiation I think a slight consideration of the foregoing motives easily shews Catholics pretend not as you would have them that if Transubstantiation can be it must be either because there are no Figures in Scripture or because a Sacrament admits of no Figures You seem to be perswaded of this your self turning these imaginarie Reasons against the Roman Catholic Assertion But alass they are no more against than they were for Transubstantiation For our Saviour's words may be literally true and yet many Figures admitted in Scripture There may be given many Spiritual interpretations of the sacred Text and yet this passage the Word was made Flest litterally signifie that the second Person of the Blessed Trinity was substantially Man. There are questionless in the old and new Testament many Figures and neither lookt upon as a meer Figure There may be then many Figures in Holy Writ and this is my Body not at all be concerned in these figurative interpretations Nor is your second reason more efficacious than the former For these words this is my Body literally received are not at all prejudiced by an outward sign or Figure of a Sacrament The very notion of a Sacrament in St. Austin's opinion shews part and hides the remainder What appears in the Sacrament of the Altar is a sign an accidental shape or resemblance and this is the object of Sense What is understood and believed can be no less than what our Blessed Saviour warrants us of his own Body How then is the substance of the Elements not changed because the Eucharist is a Sacrament and a Sacrament is a Sign A Man is an Image of God yet a Substance The Divine Son is a Figure of his Father's Substance and who can wrest from him the same Substance with his Eternal Father 'T is true it was an Arian Error the Son 's an Image therefore not God. Is your Illation stronger the Eucharist is a Sacrament or Sign therefore it is not the Substance This Error ought to correct yours Now this is my Body may be taken I think in the sense of Transubstantiation and the Eucharist remain a Sacramental Sign or resemblance Had you foreseen this Answer I presume you woul have smothered this instance viz. When he gave the Cup he said this Cup is the New Testament in my Blood where first the Cup is put for the Wine and if any thing be changed it must be the Cup. The speedy quitting of the contested Proposition this is my Body is a ready confession that you were unable to discover therein couch'd any Figurative exposition and so hasten to busie your Reader with a Metonymy contain'd in the word Cup put for Wine Had this been so how easily could sense and reason have unfolded what appeared difficult But why do I say difficult It is our common Language to ask for a Cup or Glass when we mean Drink Nor was the Phrase amongst the Jews otherwise This is cleared from the Triple repetition of the same Phrase in S. Paul to the Corinthians Drink this Cup. If this then was the proper speech and our Saviour did not speak improperly who could be so remote from Sense to guess the Cup or Chalice was to be drunk Would you not think that person extravagant who hearing you ask in a place where People were drinking Wine for a Glass should apprehend you would swallow down the Glass and so the Vessel be turn'd into your Substance Which must be true if it be false that Sense and Reason without the support of some father assistance could be deceived in so facile and usual an expression of a Cup or Glass put for Wine If then the Holy Ghost had used in Scripture the Cup for Wine I know not who could have refused such a Figure And because I find no Metonymy no Figure couch'd in this is my Body I exclude all Figurative insinuations I said if the Holy Ghost had put the Cup for Wine Wine you say the Divine Spirit writes Blood and so the Cup is metonymically put for the contained Drink in the Chalice or Blood. For what we read in St. Luke This Cup the New Testament in my Blood is equivalent to this Blood and so the Cup is Blood. If you suspect the supposal harken how St. Matthew Phrases it This is my Blood of the New Testament which is repeated by St. Mark and who dare contradict two Divine Testimonies If the Spirit of God was careful to plain so small a Nicety in so familiar a Phrase is it credible that he would have omitted the most important in the World which he has done if this is my Body be but a Figure of his Body since the Scripture discovers nothing to diminish the reality of Christ's true Body What you add if any thing be chang'd it is the Cup into the Covenant is very strange Till you make this good by Reason or evince it from Scripture give me leave not to credit your Authority And if you think the word Testament in this passage this Cup or Blood is the New Testament excludes real Blood
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 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 in some manner from the Loaves themselves The Fragments says St. Hilarie succeeded to Fragments and always broken always deceived the Breaker's hand For the Quantity of five Loaves was given 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 In the Year 740. we read of certain Heretics meeting together 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 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 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 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 't was 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 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 Anger 's 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 and St. Anselm He added a fourth Error which is to our present purpose That the consecrated 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 Guitmundus Durandus Algerus Adelmannus Hugo Lingonensis Humbertus Petrus Cluniacensis Euthymius Hugo Victorinus 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 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 William of Malemsbury 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