can make God. This is certainly to run headlong into Hell in Heavens Road wheedling the People into Blind Extasies with Hypocritically crying out O Blessed Saviour But all who says O Lord O Lord shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Examine your own Prayer and Reason will find matter enough to discuss and Conscience more to correct What Catholic ever said First That Men should kill one another Secondly That the most barbarous thing in the World is a Mystery of Religion Thirdly That we flatter the Priest who says he can make God These are as true as your Prayer is without Calumny or Hypocrisie They are as true as there were Execrable Murders committed to drive People into this Senseless Doctrin by no Body in no Place But they are not as true as the Doctrin of Transubstantiation was delivered by Christ and his Apostles taught by the Consent of the Fathers Divinely revealed and propagated to Posterity and so free from Stupidity quiet from Cruelty and a Pious Mystery of our Religion Article IV. Of the Danger of Idolatry IF we should be mistaken as you suppose about this Change through the crosness of the Priest which God forbid it should happen not pronouncing the words of Blessing or Consecration we should not at all be guilty of Idolatry For believing only one true God we profess there is infinite Distance between him and all Creatures and therefore we cannot so honour any Creature as we do the true God. Nor is our Intention ever determined by the Will to adore any thing which is not God So that if the Hoast were not through mistake consecrated by the Priest the Peoples Adoration would be terminated in Christ where e're he is because it is directed to God and not to a Creature The Pagans 't is true or Persians cannot be excused from Idolatry in worshiping the Sun because erring from the knowledge of the true God they direct their Adoration to what is not God but a Creature Mr. Thorndyke one of the great Lights of your Church was so convinced in this point that he professes should this Church of England declare that the Change which we call Reformation is grounded upon this Supposition of Idolatry in the Church of Rome I must then acknowledge that we Protestants are the Schismatics CHAP. II. Of the Monstrous Absurdity of this Doctrin TO shew the Absurdity of this Doctrin you are contented to ask these few Questions Question 1. Whether ever any Man have or ever had greater evidence of the truth of any Divine Revelation than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation Answer If we had no surer Evidence of Revealed Truth than every Man hath of the Falsehood of Transubstantiation we should have no true Evidence for Christian Religion And thus by your First Question Christianity would immediatly be dispatched out of the World. Quest 2. Supposing the Doctrin had been delivered in Scripture in the same words which we read in the Council of Trent You ask by what stronger Argument could any Man prove to me that such words were in the Bible than I can prove to him that Bread and 〈…〉 Consecration are Bread and Wine still Answer The Sense of the Council of Trent and that of the Scriptures are one and the same If therefore I can but appeal to 〈◊〉 Eyes to prove such words to be in the Bible as you do appeal to your Senses to prove that Bread and Wine remain after Consecration what the Scripture says is evidently true according to the Testimony of Sense and your Testimony from Sense of the substance of Bread remaining is evidently false I have great assurance of this For St. Paul forbids me to believe an Angel if he should come down from Heaven and teach me contrary to what is writ in Scripture As this is the substance of Bread and not my Body is contradictory to this is my Body And what Prerogative enjoy you beyond that of an Angel And if you draw one way with your Evidence of Sense and Scriptural Evidence from Sense draw another way is it not evident that your evidence is good for nothing Quest 3. Whether it be reasonable to imagin that God should make that a part of Christian Religion which shakes the main external Evidence and Confirmation of the whole You mean the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles the Assurance whereof did at first depend upon the certainty of Sense Answer With great Reason and Justice you appeal to the Senses of those who say they saw the Miracles which were wrought by our Saviour and his Apostles because their Eyes were the proper Witnesses of Miracles So with the same Reason and Justice I appeal to my Senses to prove that the words which teach the Doctrin of Transubstantiation are in Scripture because Paper Ink Syllables and words are the proper Objects of Seeing feeling and hearing How then does the Catholic Tenet shake the main External Evidence of the Christian Religion when this external proof of Sense evidences from Scripture Transubstantiation Quest Whether our Saviour's Argument were conclusive or not proving to his Disciples after his Resurrection that his Body was risen Luke 24. 29. Behold my hands and my feet that it is I my self for a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as you see me have And if seeing and handling be an unquestionable Evidence that things are what they appear to our Senses then the Bread in the Sacrament is not chang'd into the Body of Christ Answer Sense in its own Objects is frequently certain and here we may rely on it According to this Principle the Argument which our Saviour used did certainly prove to the Disciples that what they saw and handled was his true Body For affirmation of Flesh and Bones rightly follows from feeling and seeing These Actions belong properly to the experience of Sense Besides we have all this recorded in Scripture And our Saviour made use of all other Arguments imaginable to confirm the Mystery of his Resurrection In some Circumstances the Senses may deceive us and then we ought not to rely on them Thus the Jews designing to precipitate our Saviour from the top of a Mountain Jesus as we read in Scripture passed through the crowd and departed and the whole Multitude trusting to that Information which Sense gave them believ'd he was a Ghost or Apparition In like manner the same true Body of Christ is substantially present in the Sacrament after a Spiritual Existence and therefore it is not the proper Object of Sense and so we cannot here rely on our Senses We must then trust to something else viz. to the Testimony of Scripture which is the Rule of Faith to know surely what Substance or Body lies under the Species or appearance of Bread. Now the Scripture teaches us that the Bread in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ This is my Body and the Bread which I will give is my Flesh
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
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