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
occasion of its first rise could not be assigned Did not a considerable part of Christendom with all their might oppose the Turkish Invasion and if all had been quiet would not Vienna have been surprised and pilledged Was all England ignorant of the Restauration of our Gracious Monarch and were there none to be found to witness his coming in were not the Tares as soon as they sprung up seen and discovered But no body except Heretics ever opposed Transubstantiation No body but Rebels rofe against the right Prerogative of their Prince And what has the Parable of the Tares to do with the Blessed Sacrament The same confidence is sufficient to extend the same Comparison to the rest of our Christian Mysteries and proves just as much that is nothing at all except Christianity be nothing else but Tares SECT III. Of the Infallible Authority of the Present Church for this Doctrin YOU say the Roman Church made and obtruded upon the World this Article merely by vertue of her Authority Seeing not any sufficient reason either from Scripture or Tradition for the belief of it The Roman Catholic Church never taught any of her Children that She had Power from God to make an Article of Faith. But She teaches us that two Conditions are required for the constitution of an Article of Faith. First Revelation from God. Secondly The Declaration of an Oecumenical Council Where these two agree that we are taught is part of our Belief And I shall desire you will only peruse these words of the Council of Trent which intimate the Reason why the Church of God declared for Transubstantiation and I am persuaded you 'l believe She did not define this Doctrin neither warranted with Scripture nor Tradition For the Council says Because Christ our Saviour truly said that was his Body which under the Species of Bread he offered therefore the Church of God was always persuaded and this Holy Council declares again the same that by the consecration of Bread and Wine the whole substance of Bread is changed into the substance of the Body of our Lord and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of the Blood which Conversion is conveniently and properly called by the Council Transubstantiation SECT IV. Of the Necessity of such a Change for the benefit of the Receiver THE Spiritual Efficacy of the Sacrament depends upon receiving the thing which our Lord instituted and a right preparation and disposition of mind which makes it effectual to those Spiritual Ends for which it was appointed As God might without any Baptismal Water without any visible Elements have washed away the Stains of Original Sin and given Spiritual Regeneration So could he have made the worthy Receivers true Partakers of the Spiritual Comfort and Benefit design'd to us in the Lord's Supper without any substantial change made in the nature of Bread and Wine But as we cannot say the Water in Baptism and Symbols are unprofitable as things are instituted by God and useless for the cleansing of Original Sin so likewise ought we not to pretend that the Flesh of Christ is useless and profiteth nothing to the worthy Receiver of the Sacrament because Christ without this may give us the benefit or fruit of the Sacrament God might have pardon'd the World if his only begotten Son had not undergon so many griefs and anguishes so much pain and that ignominious death of the Cross Yet who dare say this Flesh was not true Flesh or profited nothing which redeemed all the World If it profited on the Cross why does it not profit in the Sacrament And if it profit not without Faith how can it profit those who believe not The very thought of our Saviour's Substantial Presence in the Sacrament strikes much a deeper impression of Devotion in my Soul than if I reflected on bare Symbols or Signs weakly exciting Faith in me And even when a Terrene Prince visits Prisons or in a Solemn Pomp enters the Capital City his Corporal Presence customarily frees many Criminals from Chains Fetters and Imprisonments which the Law would otherwise not have granted nor the King consented too And yet one word of command is sufficient to do greater execution SECT V. Of the Power of the Priest WE acknowledge a Power in the Priest which is not in the People All were not constituted Apostles all were not Doctors But we do not acknowledge a Power in the Priest to make God as you calumniate us we acknowledge a Power in God to change one Substance into another Bread into his Body Till you prove this impossible which is impossible to be done you 'll give us leave to believe God is in the right possession of his Omnipotency and loses nothing of his Power by your Detraction And if you count this Miraculous change no Miracle give it what Title you please we will not dispute the Name if you contradict not the thing And thus I have dispatched the first part of my Answer which was to vindicate the real Grounds and Reasons of the Church of Rome for this Doctrin PART I MY Second Part was designed to answer your Objections which are of so much the less force because I have already shewn this Doctrin sufficiently warranted with Divine Authority and this easily weighs down and overthrows whatever Probabilities Sense can suggest or Reason invent These Probabilities you reduce to these two Heads First The infinite Scandal of this Doctrin to the Christian Religion And Secondly The monstrous and insupportable Absurdity of it CHAP. I. Of the infinite Scandal of this Doctrin to the Christian Religion AND this upon four accounts First by reason of the Stupidity of this Doctrin Secondly The real barbarousness of it Thirdly The Bloody consequences of it Fourthly The danger of Idolatry Article I. Of the Stupidity of this Doctrin TUlly the Roman Orator says When we call the Fruits of the Earth Ceres and Wine Bacchus we use but the common Language but do you think any man so mad as to believe what he eats to be God I am of Cicero's Opinion And all reasonable People look upon Poetical Fancies as Extravagant Reveries But I hope the Law of Christ is neither Poetical nor Fabulous I remember the Poets sing how Minerva the Goddess of Wisdom was born of Jupiter's Understanding Harken says Tertullian a Fable but a true one like to this The Word of God proceeding from the Thought of his Eternal Father This Likeness or Similitude of Poetical invention diminishes not in the least the truth of the Son's Divinity Nor ought the Stupidity of eating God in Tully's Opinion ridicule our Saviour's own Words Take eat this is my Body Averröes the Arabian Philosopher acknowledging in his time this Doctrin to be the Profession of all Christians ought to make not what you say the Church of Rome the Church of England blush objecting that the whole Society of Christians then every where admitted Transubstantiation I have
a Figure of Christ's Body you cannot deny but you read in this Father that Christ made the Bread his Body as we read in St. John he made Water Wine The Sacrament may then be a Figure and the true Body Thus he proves the same thing to be called a Figure and yet to be the same substance instancing the Word is God and an Image too The Catholic Church only disallows those Figures which exclude the true Substance of Christ's Body present in the Sacrament You urge a second Testimony from the same Author using this Argument against the Sceptics who rejected the certainty of Sense He might be deceived in the voice from Heaven in the smell of the Oyntment with which he was anointed against his burial and in the taste of the Wine which he consecrated in the remembrance of his Blood. These last Words are somewhat changed Tertullian says he tasted not another Savour of Wine which he consecrated in remembrance of his Blood. This learned Father established two Principles 1. That Christ was truly Man. And 2. That his Operations were real like other Mens The First Verity was not here Tertullian's Theme This he vindicated against Marcion where he proved that Christ was not a Phantasm or Appearance The Second Verity Tertullian here made good against the Sceptics For if the sound of the Voice from Heaven was not imaginary if the Smell of the Perfume was not Odoriferous and if there was not another Tast of the Wine which was consecrated in remembrance of Christ's Blood then these Operations of our Saviour were not distinct from vulgar Sensation like those Impressions other Men naturally receive sincere real and without delusion All Catholics grant as much and none will deny the same Tast of Wine after Consecration But the Tast is not the Substance of Wine The Substance of Wine is not here spoken of And the knowledge of Substance is the proper endeavour of Reason Senses care is to search into the certainty of Colour Tast Accidents and Appearances which was Tertullian's Province against the Sceptics The whole Controversie then between us is left by this Objection entire and untouched Article IV. Upon Origen ORigen on his Comment on St. Matthew speaking of the Sacrament hath this Passage That Food which is sanctified by the Word of God and Prayer as to that of it which is material goeth into the Belly and is cast out into the Draught which none surely will say as you remark of the Body of Christ But some have said it of the Body of Christ which they thought was conveyed under the shape of material Accidents of Bread into the Draught which Sense if admitted to be Origen's the Learned Cardinal Peron might say without injury Origen talks like an Heretic The same Illustrious Cardinal doubts whether this be the Work of Origen because he says Erasmus was the first that produced this Old Fragment where he had it no Body knows and this not a Fragment but only a Version thereof and cautioned by himself Sixtus Senensis suspects this Testimony of Origen was depraved by Heretics Genebrard is of the same Opinion These Critical Censures take all assurance from your Objection rendring it either dubious or depraved or heretical Moreover if Origen in this Passage should downright prescribe the Catholic Belief of the change of Bread into the Body of Christ this ought not to disquiet any sober Inquirer Because his chief Error was the exclusion of the literal Sense in Scripture Whereupon Lirinensis calls Origen the Interpreter of Scripture after a new manner St. Epiphanious complains he turned all into Allegories Theophilus says he supplants by Shades and Images the Truths of Scripture And the Church in the Fifth Oecumenical Council peculiarly anathematised his Works Finally If I should answer by what is material is understood only the material Accidents of Bread and Wine which go into the Belly and are cast into the Draught what inconvenience would follow from your Objection No more than what follows from what the same Father adds by way of explication It is not the matter of the Bread but the Word which is spoken over it which profiteth him who worthily eateth the Lord and this he says he had spoken concerning the Typical and Symbolical Body So that the Matter of Bread receives the Word of God spoken over it and this Word as it changes the Substance of Bread so doth it profit the worthy Receiver and this Word Origen calls the Typical and Symbolical Body of Christ because the Word is Spiritual Food Thus the fame Father in his Homilies upon Leviticus proves Christ's Flesh to be true Meat because all his Speech is true Food And he adds St. Peter St. Paul and all the Apostles are Food will you conclude from hence the Apostles were not true Men At least if this will not do you resolve to do the business by drawing out of the same Homily a killing Letter of the New Testament For if says Origen we take according to the Letter that which is said except ye eat my Flesh and drink my Blood this Letter kills This Letter except ye eat my Flesh understood of the Substantial presence of Christ's Body after a Sacramental manner invisible to Sense under the species of Bread is what gives life in the Catholic Church according to that of St. John who shall eat my Flesh shall live for ever If Roman Catholics be out of danger the blow must fall else where It falls upon the Capharnaits who following the naked Letter carnally thought our Saviour would give his Flesh to be served in as common Meat and cut in Pieces It falls upon those who literally adhering to what they see believe they receive what it seems to be Bread. Upon both these it falls If we follow saith Origen the Letter and expound it either according to the Jews acceptation were not these the Capharnaity or according to what it seems commonly to be are you not of this Number I blush to confess what is writ in the Law. Thus you strike at Catholics with the Killing Letter of Origen and wound your self together with the Capharnaits For your warlike Argument give me leave to propose two peaceable ones out of the same Father The First is in his Homilies upon Numbers where he compares the Figure with the Figurated the Manna with the Body of Christ The Manna was in Figure Food Now in reality the Flesh of the Word God is true Meat And what was first in the Figure designed is now compleated in truth and reality The Second is contained in these Words When you receive the Holy Food and Incorruptible Banquet when in the Bread and Cup of life you eat and drink the Body and Blood of our Lord then our Lord enters under your roof do you therefore humbling your self imitate the Centurion and say Lord I am not worthy thou shouldst enter under my Roof
Sense understand this to be meant of true Bread Others notwithstanding this natural Exposition in the behalf of the Roman Catholic Assertion will have the word Communion to signifie the Substance of Bread. If it must signifie Substance let us deal fairly and in the place of Communion substitute the word Substance and so we shall easily see to what this Substance belongs The Bread which we break is it not the Substance of the Body of Christ Neither can the Church of Rome as well argue from the following Verse 17. For we being many are one Bread and one Body that all Christians are substantially chang'd first into Bread and then into the Natural Body of Christ as you will have it Because we see no Reason in the World for this And the Divine Apostle instructs us otherwise declaring the precise and only Reason of this Unity For we are all Partakers of the same Body 'T is Participation not any Substantial Change in our selves makes us one in Christ Nor is a pressing Example wanting in the Apostle to the same purpose are not they the Pagans which eat of the Sacrifices Partakers of the Altar You instance the same Apostle speaking of the Consecration of the Elements still calls them the Bread and the Cup in three Verses together This is Acute and Subtile But each Witty Contrivance is not true It is not true St. Paul calls the Consecrated Elements the Bread and the Wine We read indeed in three Verses together the bare word of Bread attributed to the Eucharist as often as you eat this Bread and this is all we read which may be said without any prejudice to the Substantial Change. And this for two Reasons both dictated by the Holy Ghost First By reason of the outward appearance of Bread. Secondly Because it formerly was Bread. The First Reason St. Luke authorises in the Acts. Behold two Men stood by them in white apparel Here the bare Name of Man is attributed to Angels and Angels are only Men in appearance The Second Reason is deduced from two Substantial Conversions We read in Exodus They cast down every Man his Rod and they became Serpents but Aaron's Rod swallowed up the Rods of the Magicians And in St. John when the Ruler of the Feast had tasted the Water that was Wine He tasted Water and the Water was Wine The Serpent is called a Rod and was a Serpent because the Serpent and the Wine were formerly a Rod and Water It is then true that the bare Name of bread may be attributed to the Eucharist without any prejudice of the Substantial Change of Bread into the true Body of Christ And if it be not true that St. Paul says the Consecrated Elements are Bread and Wine it is true that St. Paul calls the Consecrated Bread Christ's Body Jesus took Bread and when he had given thanks brake it and said take eat this is my Body which is broken for you So does St. Chrysostom What is the Bread the Body of Christ So does St. Ambrose This Bread is Flesh You resume this is my Body which is broken cannot be literally understood of his Natural Body broken because his Body was then whole and unbroken I answer how can you contradict our Saviour who says this is my Body which is broken And if it be Christ's Body 't is his real Body for he had no Phantasm or imaginary Body Nor did I ever hear that Christ had two real Bodies But the same Body may have two different existences a Natural and Supernatural Existence For if God can give a Natural Existence to what is not can what is hinder God from adding a Supernatural Existence Now these Words which is broken cannot be understood of the Natural Existence of our Saviour's Body hanging on the Cross for there his Body was unbroken whence that of St. Chrysistom we may see this in the Eucharist and the contrary on the Cross His bones shall not be broken Nor is it hard to conceive how the Body of Christ may be said to be broken in the Sacrament For as a Substance is said to be visible by reason of the visible accidents which environ it Thus we commonly say I saw a Man and yet nor Soul nor Substance of the Body but only the shape and outward appearance of the Substance was the object of the Eye So likewise Christ's Body in the Sacrament takes the denomination of broken from the Species of Bread which is truly divided Article V. The Silence of the Apostles at the Institution YOU ought not to be surprised if the Disciples frequently full of Questions and Objections should make no difficulty of this matter when our Saviour instituted the Sacrament not so much as ask our Saviour How can these things be or tell him We see this to be Bread and Wine and thy Body distinct from both My reason is because when the Jews and the Disciples were blamed for these inquiries at the promise of our Saviour the Apostles assisted with Divine Grace gave credit to our Saviour's Words And if they believed the Promise why should they be disquieted at the Institution We read after these words in St. John where the Promise of Christ in the Sacrament is given The Bread which I will give is my Flesh This Passage the Jews therefore strove amongst themselves saying how can this man give us his Flesh to eat This Jewish Opposition was seconded with the murmur of Christ's Disciples many therefore of his Disciples when they had heard this said This is an hard saying who can hear it This murmur after all our Saviour's Arguments to settle the Jews in the belief of what was promised ended in a plain desertion or leaving of Jesus from that time many of his Disciples went and walked no more with him Here is the reluctancy you sought for and the Objections you demanded in the Apostles But do you think this Resistance was laudable in the Jews Do you believe this Opposition was commendable in the Disciples Or rather to be disturbed at our Saviour's Ordination and Assertion Is it not the beginning of Incredulity And yet for all this you raise Sense and erect it as an Idol to the Peoples Devotions Bewitching Sense whose Allurements intice the greatest Integrity of Noblest Souls and would win too their Thoughts if less than a God interposed Hence this Speech of St. Hilary that great Persecutor of Arianism There is folly in declaring for Jesus Christ had we not received from him this Lesson of Truth Jesus says the Bread is truly Flesh and the Wine is truly Blood after this Declaration ther 's left no place to doubt of the verity of his Flesh and Blood. St. Ambrose opposes to the restless importunity of Sense the prerogative of the Deity Lest asking of God what we expect from man reason of things we should entrench upon Divine Prerogatives And what more unworthy than to believe men
for where he enters unworthily there he enters in Judgment with the Receiver This holy Food cannot be the substance of Bread because Origen calls it an incorruptible Banquet Bread is not such Nor can it be a bare typical Figure of the Lord for when the Centurion said O Lord I am not worthy 't was our own Saviour present And if this Humiliation O Lord I am unworthy be attributed to any thing but our Saviour there present how can you excuse it from Idolatrie Finally this Lord invocated enters into the wicked which cannot be by Faith. For your Church teaches unworthy Receivers are not partakers of the Lord in the Sacrament by Faith. Article V. Vpon St. Cyprian YOU object St. Cyprian hath a whole Epistle to Caecilius against those who gave the Communion in Water without Wine mingled with it and his main Argument against them is this that the Blood of Christ with which we are redeemed and quickned cannot seem to be in the Cup when Wine is wanting to the Chalice by which the Blood of Christ is represented Very well It is Wine in representation and the Blood of Christ is in the Cup by propriety or essence for it is that Blood with which we were redeemed and quickned according to St. Cyprian You argue afterwards from these other Words of the same Saint by the Water the People is understood by Wine the Blood of Christ is shew'n but when in the Cup Water is mingled with Wine the People are united to Christ so that you deduce according to this Argument Wine in the Sacramental Cup is no otherwise changed into the Blood of Christ than the Water mixed with it is changed into the People which are said to be united to Christ I shall not be strictly put to it for an Answer after I have thus proposed St. Cyprian's mind St. Cyprian compares here the Jews to Wine the Gentiles to Water at the Marriage of Canaan The want of Wine marked out the Jews who refused to embrace the Law of Christ The plentifulness of Water represented the Gentiles converted to Christianity Hence Water comes in the Sacrament to design the Elected People Wine the Blood of Christ and both mixt in the Chalice the union of the People with Christ Now to your Argument And that I may the better convince you give me leave to make use of your Logic. Water is the People as Wine is Christ then as we receive Christ by Faith in the Sacrament so do we the People And consequently the People sanctify the Soul as Christ doth in the Eucharist Are you not ashamed of your Sophism Or rather how durst you equalize the People with Christ Sinners with their Saviour Man with God Again Wine signified the Jews according to St. Cyprian and Water the Gentiles now deduce from hence the Water was not changed into Wine at the Marriage of Canaan as you have done from the like instance that the mixed Chalice is not changed into Christ's Body and Blood. Article VI. Upon St. Augustin THE variety of Testimonies you gather from St. Augustin cannot well without perplexity be considered altogether I 'll endeavour to decline this Confusion examining each one of them in so many Paragraphs Paragraph I. YOU pitch first upon this Expression of St. Austin's in his Book against Adimantus the Manichee Our Lord did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave the sign of his Body Adimantus endeavours to demonstrate the God of the Old Testament prohibited eating of Blood grounding himself upon this Principle of Duteronomy Blood is the Soul of the Flesh thereby to prejudice that Soul which Jesus declared in the Gospel was not lyable to corporal harm or punishment St. Augustin replys the Old Law speaks of the Animal Soul and the Words of Christ are only understood of the Rational Secondly the Holy Doctor tells him that Blood is called the Soul only because it is the Sign of the Soul. This he confirms accommodating himself to the Language of the Manichees who were of opinion that Bread Corn and Grapes naturally signified Christ's Body with this Instance our Saviour did not doubt to say this is my Body when he gave in the Manichees Opinion the Sign of his Body The Manichees Opinion was not St. Austin's And he therefore forewarns us to call in question Faith because he made use of the Manichee's Principle in their own confutation Paragraph II. SAINT Austin speaking of Judas whom our Lord admitted to his last Supper has these Words in which he recommended and delivered to his Disciples the Figure of his Body Language say you with exclamation which would now be censured for Heresie in the Church of Rome I 'm confident you are already persuaded to the contrary And I know not any Sect which holds a Figure incompatible with the reality I shall cite two of your Learned Patrons Peter Martyr says A Figure as far forth as 't is a Figure is not repugnant to the presence of the thing And Calvin before him granted a Figure doth not exclude the thing figurated The Lutherans are not of a contrary mind And if you 'll be pleased to look either into the Ancient or Modern Divines among Catholics you 'll find the same acknowledgment Paschasius formerly gave this answer to Frudegardus instancing St. Austin's Testimony These are Replys Paschasius Mystical things in which is the verity of Flesh and Blood and none others than Christ's yet in a Mysterie and Figure and the Words of this Mystery are called a Figurative Speech so Christ himself is called by the Apostle a Figure though Christ be the Truth Algerus illustrates the same with this Reflection upon St. John Baptist He was called a Prophet and more than a Prophet So the Sacrament is a Figure and more than a Figure To these I add of the Modern Catholic Schoolmen Ruardus Melderus Cardinal Alen Suarez Gordon Gonet And I never read any that held the contrary And I conclude with this of St. Austin The Blessed Virgin did not onely conceive Christ spiritually by Faith consenting to the Angelical Salutation but also conceived him corporally in her own Womb. How then doth the spiritual reception by Faith exclude the substantial Communion of Christ's Body in St. Austin's Opinion Paragraph III. IN the Third Place you cite his Comment on the 98th Psalm where treating of the scandal which the Disciples took at that saying of our Saviour except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink his Blood he brings in our Saviour speaking thus to them ye must understand spiritually what I have said unto you ye are not to eat this Body which ye see and to drink this Blood which shall be shed by those that shall crucify me I have commended a certain Sacrament to you which being Spiritually understood will give you Life This is as much as to say be not
receiving in the Sacrament from the presence of Christ's Immortal Body the living Seed of Incorruption rise when dissolved by death increased with Immortality This agrees well with St. Irenaeus's design demonstrating in the place objected that our Bodies are capable of Resurrection because we receive in the Sacrament the true Body of Christ that Body which consists of Flesh Blood and Bones How can they deny says he the Flesh to be capable of the Gift of God For we are Members of his Body of his Flesh and of his Bones This is not spoken of a Spiritual or Metaphorical Man for a Spirit has neither Bone nor Flesh but it is delivered according to the disposition of Man which consists of Flesh of Nerves and Bones which is nourished with the Chalice which is his Blood and increased with the Bread which is his Body Do not Flesh Nerves Bones and Blood belong to a true Substantial Body You add St. Irenaeus 's words preserved by Oecumenius when the Greeks had taken some Servants of the Christian Catecumeni that is such as were disposed but not yet baptized and afterwards urged them by violence to tell them some of the secrets of the Christians These Servants having nothing to say that might gratifie those who offered violence to them except only that they had heard from their Masters that the Divine Communion was the Blood and Body of Christ they thinking that it was really Blood and Flesh declared as much to those who question'd them The Greeks taking this as it really were done by the Christians discovered it to others of the Greeks who hereupon put Sanctus and Blandina to the torture to make them confess it To whom Blandina boldly answered how would they endure to do this who by way of exercise or abstinence do not eat that Flesh which may lawfully be eaten Now if we consider Blandina's Answer we shall find therein contained a pious denyal of what was objected and a Christian reserve of what was received in the Sacrament A pious denial of eating the Flesh and Blood of a Child as the Greeks and all Pagans conceived after a carnal manner which shall be more amply discoursed hereafter And this caused Blandina to say How could they be guilty of such a heinous eating who abstain upon fasting days from Flesh which may lawfully be eaten A Christian reserve not discovering the Mystery to Pagans which was esteemed a betraying of Religion Thus Tharsilius the Acholyt as venerable Beda relates having the blessed Sacrament about him was seized on by the Barbarians and martyr'd because he refused to shew it St. Ambrose declares the discovery of the Mystery to those who were not baptized pass'd not for an instruction but for a sort of Treason in Religion St. Cyril says We speak not clearly of the Mystery to the Catecumeni and we are often constrained to make use of such Expressions which are understood by the Faithful instructed and do not offend other Assistants Such was Blandina's Reply which neither offended the Greeks nor betrayed the Mystery Article III. Upon Tertullian TErtullian proves against Marcion as you write the Heretique That the Body of our Saviour was not a meer Phantasm and Appearance but a real Body because the Sacrament is a Figure and an Image of his Body His Words are these The Bread which our Saviour took and gave to his Disciples he made his own Body saying this is my Body that is the Figure of my Body But it could not have been a Figure of his Body if there had not been a true and real Body Tertullian often sententious and difficult in expression as Lactantius and St. Jerom affirm may easily be misunderstood and misrepresented This Father's design here is to confute the Marcionites who defended that the God of the Old Testament was opposite to God the Father of Christ Author of the New Law. He makes good this undertaking proving the perfect agreement of both Testaments completed in Jesus who did not abolish but fulfil the Law when he changed the Shadow into a Body the Figure into Truth As Tertullian phrases it in his Fisth Book against Marcion This Accomplishment he shew'd from that of Jeremy where we read how the Jews fast'ned to the Cross the Bread of Christ that is his Body This he evidenced because Bread in the Old Law was a Figure of Christ's Body These are his Words It is what God has revealed in your own Gospel calling Bread his Body making known by this that Christ whose Body the Prophet represented in Bread long before he fulfilled this Figure gave from this very time of the Prophecy Bread to be the Figure of his Body These Words Christ gave the Bread even from the time of Jeremy to be the Figure of his Body represent Christ as Master and these others Jeremy represented in Bread the Body of Christ exhibit the Prophet as Minister Both testifie that Bread was a Figure in the Written Law and the Subordination of Jeremy to Jesus proves the concord of Christ with the ancient Testament which was Tertullian's peculiar Task The same he pursues in the place by you cited Bread He made his own Body saying this is my Body that is a Figure in the Prophet of Christ's Body This sense agrees well with the foregoing Tenor of this learned Father's Discourse 2. These following Words are another Confirmation But it would not have been a Figure of his Body if there was not a true Body He does not say it was not a Figure he says it would not have been a Figure in the Old Law. 3. Marcion argues for you but why did he call Bread his Body and not something else Tertullian answers that he argued thus not knowing Bread was an ancient Figure of the Body of Christ as we learn from Jeremy 4. He confirms the same in these Words You may likewise acknowledge the Old Figure of Blood in Wine It follows also from hence that our Saviour's Body was not a Phantasm or an Appearance which was another of the Marcionits Errors but a real Body not that the Sacrament as you would have it but that Bread in the Old Law as I have demonstrated was a Figure and Image of his Body in the Sacrament which must be a true Body otherwise there is a Figure of a Figure which your own party will not allow of Nor could it adds Tertullian have been a Figure of his Body if there had not been a true and real Body If for all this you will pretend that as Bread in the Prophet was a Figure so likewise is Bread still in the Eucharist a Figure of Christ's Body I may without prejudice to the Catholic Belief humour you so far as to grant the Sacramental Bread is a Figure but a Figure joyned to the Reality For if you will say what you find not in Tertullian that the Bread in the Sacrament is