Roman-Catholick doctrines no novelties, or, An answer to Dr. Pierce's court-sermon, miscall'd The primitive rule of Reformation by S.C. a Roman-Catholick.

CHAP. XI. (Book 11)

Of Transubstantiation, or a Substantial Presence of our Lords Body in the Sacrament. Iustified by the Au∣thorities of the Fathers, &c. The Preacher's Objections Answer'd.

1. THe three next supposed Novelties of the Catholic Church all regard the most holy Sacrament. That blessed Myste∣ry, which was instituted to be both a Sym∣bal and instrument, to signifie and to ope∣rate Vnity, is, by the cunning of the Devil, and malicious folly of men, becom both the work and cause of Dis-union.

2. Touching this Subject the first of the three Novelties the Doctor says is Transub∣stantiation* 1.1

So far from being from the be∣ginning that it is not much above four hun∣dred years old,* 1.2 that it was first beard of in the Council of Lateran. For in Pope Ni∣cholas the Second's time the submission of

Berengarius imports rather a Con—then Transubstantiation. But evident it is, That it was never taught by our Saviour, since he in the same breath wherewith he pro∣nounced, This is my Blood, explain'd himself by calling it expresly the fruit of the Vins. and there needs no more to make the Roma∣nists ashamed of that Doctrin, than the con∣cession of Aquinas, who says, That it is im∣possible for one body to be locally in more places than one: From whence Bellarmin angrily infers, that it equally implies a Con∣tradiction for one body to be so much as Sa∣cramentally in more places than one.

3. In order to the giving some satisfaction touching this matter, I will, as before, set down the Churches Doctrin concerning this most holy Sacrament, which will extend it self to all his three pretended Novelties. In the Profession of Faith compiled by Pope Pius iv.* 1.3 out of the Council of Trent it is said, I profess that in the Masse there is offered to God a true proper and propitiatory Sacrifice for the living and Dead: And that in the most holy Sacra∣ment of the Eucharist there is truly and Sub∣stantially the Body and Blood▪ together with the Soul and Divinity of our Lord Iesus Christ: and that there is a Conversion (or Change) of the whole Substance of Bread into his Body, and of Wine into his Blood: which change the Ca∣tholic Church calls Transubstantiation. More∣over I confess that under one of the Species alone

whole and entire Christ, and a true Sacrament is received.

4. And if he will needs have it so, let it be granted, that the Latin word Transubstanti∣ation begun commonly to be received among Catholics at the Council of Lateran: Though there was a Greek expression exactly import∣ing as much [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] as old as his Begin∣ning, that is, in the time of the first General Council. But for God's sake let not a new word drive him out of God's Church, as the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 did the Arians. He may ob∣serve with Cardinal Perron that the Church only says, the change made in the holy Sacra∣ment is usually called Transubstantiation: So that on condition he allow a real Substantial change, the word it self shall not hinder us from being good Friends.

5. The Doctor sees now what our Church holds concerning this Point. She delivers her mind sincerely, candidly, ingenuously. But if I should ask him what his Church holds, it would cost him more labour to give a satis∣factory Answer than to make ten such Ser∣mons.

6. There are among Christians only four ways of expressing a presence of Christ in the Sacrament. 1▪ That of the Zuinglians, Socini∣ans, &c. who admit nothing at all real here; The Presence, say they, is only figurative or imaginary: As we see Bread broken and eaten, &c. so we ought to call to mind that

that Christs Body was crucified, and torn for us, and by Faith (or a strong fancy) we are made partakers of his Body, that is, not his Body, but the blessings that the offring his Body may procure. 2. That of Calvin and English Divines,* 1.4 who usually say, as Calvin did, That in the holy Sacrament our Lord offers unto us not onely the benefit of his Death and Re∣surrection, but the very Body it self in which he dyed and rose again: Or, as King Iames, We ac∣knowledge a presence no lesse true and real then Catholics do;* 1.5 only we are ignorant of the manner: [Of which it seems he thought that Catho∣lics were not.] So that this presence is sup∣posed a Substantial presence, but after a spiritu∣al manner: A presence not to all, but to the worthy receivers: Offred perhaps to the un∣worthy, but only partaken by the worthy: A presence not to the Symbols, but the Recei∣vers Soul only: Or if (according to Mr. Hooker) in some sence the Symbols do exhibit the very Body of Christ, yet they do not con∣tain in them what they exhibit, at least not before the actual receiving. 3. Of the Lu∣therans, who hold a presence of Christs Body in the Sacrament as real, proper and substantial as Catholics do, but deny an exclusion of Bread. For Bread, say they, remains as be∣fore, but to and with it the Body of our Lord (every where present) is in a sort hypostati∣cally united: Yet some among them d••ny a∣ny reverence is to be exhibited to Christ,

though indeed substantially present. 4. That of Roman Catholics, whose sense was let down before; whereto this only is to be added, That believing a real conversion of Bread in∣to our Lords Body, &c. they think them∣selves obliged, in conformity to the Ancient Church, as to embrace the Doctrine, so to imitate their practise in exhibiting due reve∣rence and worship (not to the Symbols, not to any thing which is the object of sense, as Cal∣vinists slander them; but) to our Lord himself only, present in and under the Symbols.

7. Now three of these four Opinions, that is, every one but that of English Prote∣stants speak intelligible sense: Every one knows what Zuinglians, Lutherans, and Ro∣man Catholics mean: But theirs (which they call a Mystery) is Indeed a Iargon, a Linsey-Wolsey Stuff, made probably to sui•• with any Sect according to interests: They that taught it first in England, were willing to speak at least, and, if they had been permitted, to mean likewise as the Catholic Church instru∣cted them, but the Sacrilegious Protectour in King Edwards daies, and afterward the Privy Council in Queen Elizabeths, found it for their wordly advantage, that their Divines should, at least in words, accuse the Roman Church for that Doctrine which themselves believed to be true. But now, since the last Restitution, if that renew'd Rubrick at the end of the Communion, be to be esteem'd Do∣ctrinall,

then the last Edition of their Religion in this Point is meer Zuinglianism, to which the Presbyterians themselves, if they are true Calvinists, will refuse to subscribe. Thus the new Religion of England is almost become the Religion of New England.

8. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 remains now that I should by a few authorities justifie our Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation, or real substantial Presence, to be far from deserving to be called a Novelty of ••our hundred years standing. By Catho∣lic Doctrine, I mean the Doctrine of the Church, not of the Schools, the Doctrine delivered by Tradition, not Ratiocination: Not a Doctrine that can be demonstrated by human empty Philosophy. On the contrary, it may be con∣fidently assorted, that all such pretended de∣monstrations are not only not concluding, but illusory, because that is said to be demon∣strated by reason, which Tradition tells us is above reason, and ought not to be squared by the Rule of Philosophy: The presence of Christ in the Sacrament is truly real and Sub∣stantial, but withall Sacramental, that is My∣stical, inexplicable, incomprehensible. It is a great mistake among Protestants, when they argue that we, by acknowledging a Conversion by Transubstantiation, pretend to declare the modum conversionis. No; that is far from the Churches, or the Antient Fathers thoughts. For by that expression the onely signifies, the change is not a matter of fancy,

but real, yet withal Mystical. The Fathers, to expresse their belief of a real conversion, make use of many real changes mentioned in the Scripture, as of Aarons Rod into a Ser∣pent, of water into wine, &c. But withal they adde, That not any of these Examples do fit, or properly represent the Mystical change in the Sacrament: Sence or Reason might comprehend and judge of those changes, but Faith alone must submit to the incomprehen∣siblenesse of this. When Water was turn'd into Wine, the eyes saw, and the Palat tasted Wine, it had the colour, extension, and lo∣cality of Wine; But so is it not when Bread by consecration becomes the Body of Christ; For ought that Sence can judge, there is no change at all: Christs Body is present, but without locality: It is present, but not cor∣porally, as natural bodies are present, one part here, and another there. The Quomodo of this presence is not to be inquired into, nor can it without presumption be deter∣min'd. This is that which the Church calls a Sacramental, Mystical presence. But, that this presence is real and substantial, a presence in the Symbols or Elements, and not only in the mind of the worthy receiver, the Fathers unanimously teach: And indeed if it were not so, none could receive the Body of Christ unworthily, because according to Protestants, it is not the Body of Christ, but meer Bread that an impenitent Sinner receives: And St.

Pauls charge would be irrational, when he saies,* 1.6 such An one receives judgment to himself in that he does not discern the Body of our Lord. Besides, if the change be not in the Elements, but in the Receivers Soul, what need is there of Consecration? What effect can Consecration have? Why may not another man or woman as well as a Priest, administer this Sacrament? What hinders that such a Presence may not be effected in the mind every Dinner or Supper, and as well when we eat flesh, and drink any other Liquor besides Wine at our own Table, as at that of our Lord.

9. Now, whether their Doctrine or ours be a Novelty, let Antiquity judge. If I should produce, as he knows I may, hundreds of Testimonies that by conversion a change is made of the Bread into the Body, and Wine into the Blood of Christ, he would think to escape by allowing a change to be made, but only in the Act of worthy receiving. There∣fore I will onely make use of such Authorities as demonstrate this change to be made before communicating; that it remains, when the Sacrament is reserved, and that immediately after consecration, before any participation of the Symbols, both the Priest and People did perform an act of Adoration to Christ, belei∣ved to be really and substantially, though mysti∣cally, present.

10. In all ancient Liturgies (as Blondel* 1.7 him∣self, though a Huguenot, confesses) the pray∣er

in the consecration of the Elements was, That God would by his holy Spirit sanctifie the Ele∣ments,* 1.8 whereby the Bread may be made the Body, and the Wine the Blood of our Lord. And, that before communicating, whilst it was on the Altar, it was esteem'd and worshiped as the true Body of our Lord, St. Chrysostome will witnesse,* 1.9 Let us, saith he, who are Citizens of Heaven, imitate but even the barbarous Magi, (who worshipped our Lord an Infant, &c.) Thou seest him not in the Manger, but on the Altar. Thou dost not see a woman holding him, but the Priest standing by him, and the Spirit with great vertue hovering over these (Mysteries) pro∣posed. Thou not only seest the Body it self, as the Magi did, but thou knowest also the vertue of it, &c. The same Body which is the most precious and most honour'd thing in Heaven, I will shew thee placed upon Earth, &c. Neither dost thou only see it, but touchest and eatest it, and having received it, thou returnest home with it,* 1.10 &c. Hence Optatus saith, What other thing is the Altar, but the Seat of the Body and Blood of Christ. A yet more irrefragable witnesse hereof is the General Council of Nice, wherein (Act. l. 3. c. de Di∣vinâ mensâ) are these words, In this Divine Table let us not abase our intentions so as to consi∣der the Bread and Wine set before us, but raising up our mind by Faith, let us understand that upon that holy Table is placed the Lamb of God, which takes away the sins of the World, which is unbloo∣dily immolated by the Priest, and receiving his pre∣cious

Body and Blood, let us truly believe that these are the Symbols of our Redemption.

And, that the Elements, once consecrated and after reserved, yet remain the Body of Christ though not participated, St. Cyril of Alexandria expresly ••ectifies, I hear (saith he) there are others who affirm that the Mystical Eulo∣gy,* 1.11 if any thing of it remain till another day, doth profit nothing to sanctification. Bur they are mad who say these things: For Christ is not alter'd, neither is his holy Body changed; but the vertue of Benediction and quickning grace perpe∣tually remains in it. And as touching Ad••rati∣on of our Lord, as acknowledged substantial∣ly present on the Altar, St. Ambrose expresly asserts it, Adore the foot-stool of his feet. There∣fore by the footstool is understood the Earth;* 1.12 and the Earth the flesh of Christ, which at this day also we adore in the Mysteries, and which the Apostles adored in our Lord Iesus. And from St. Ambrose the same is taught as expresly by St. Augustin, discoursing on the same Text,* 1.13 Adorate Scabel∣lum pedum ejus: Who moreover adds, Christ hath given his flesh to be eaten by us for our▪ Sal∣vation: Now no man eats this, except he first a∣dore it. Yea, moreover he saies, We do not only not sin by adoring it, but we should sin if we did not adore it, And in an Epistle to Honoratus, he affirms,* 1.14 That the rich of the Earth and proud are somtimes brought to the Table of our Lord, and there receive of his Body and Blood, but they onely adore it, they are not satiated with it, because they

do not imitate him (by humility.) For of the humble it is said, Edent pauperes & satura∣buntur.

11. The same may be inferr'd by the won∣derfull niceness and scrupolosity observed in the Primitive Church in the handling, com∣municating and reserving these Mysteries; what a crime was it esteem'd in the Primitive times, if but a crum or drop of the consecra∣ted Elements should fall to the ground? For fear of that, till about the year six hundred they were received by the Communicants not in their Fingers, as among the Reformed, but in the inside plain of their hands, and in a silver Pipe, &c. But I will conclude this point with a brief Answer to the Doctors Alle∣gations.

12. Whereas therefore he says, It is evident that Transubstantiation wa•• never taught by our Saviour, since in the same breath wherewith he pronounced these words, This is my Blood, he explain'd himself by calling it expresly the Fruit of the Vine. On the contrary I do confident∣ly pronounce it to be evident, that those words were neither spoken by our Lord in the same breath after the Consecration of the Chalice, nor had they any regard to the Sa∣crament. 'Tis true they are mentioned by St. Matthew after the Consecration, but he knows that in St. Luke, who promised to write 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, those words are mentioned before any Conse∣cration began, and the occasion of them is

evidently the eating of the Paschal Supper &c. For this is his Narration: When the hour was come he sate down,* 1.15 and the twelve A∣postles with him. And he said unto them with desire I have desired to eat this Passeover with you before I suffer. For I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfill'd in the kingdom of God. And he took the Cup and gave thanks, and said, Take this and divide it among your selves, For I say unto you I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine, until the kingdom of God shall come. Now after all this follows his own last Supper, the Mystical consecration and communion of his blessed Body and Blood. For the Text thus continues, And he took Bread saying,* 1.16 This is my Body, &c. likewise also the Cup after Supper, saying, This Cup, &c. This being the order of the words, no Text can possibly with more evidence con∣••ute the Doctor than this which himself cites: for what can be clearer, if before Consecrati∣on our Saviour said, He would drink no ••ore of the fruit of the Vine? then that what he drank after was not of the fruit of the Vine? But be∣sides this, though our Lord should have cal∣led it, after Consecration, the fruit of the Vine, as Saint Paul calls the other Symbol Bread: this does not argue against a Change in their nature; For Moses his Rod, after it was changed into a Serpent is call'd a Rod still, because it had been one [Exod. 7. 12.] and [Io. 2. 9.] it is said, That the Ma∣ster

of the Feast tasted the Water that was made Wine.

13. Is not now the Doctor's Insincerity e∣vident his insincerity even in the Pulpit? has he not palpably mis-inform'd his Majesty and so illustrious an Auditory? And though he should still continue to prefer St. Matthews order of Narration before St. Lukes, yet what St. Luke writes cannot possibly be applyed to the Sacrament: For, though those special words,* 1.17 I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the Vine untill, &c. if they stood alone, might seem applicable to the consecrated Cha∣lice: yet those other of Saint Luke, I will not any more eat of this Pass••over, untill, &c. cannot possibly be applyed to the con∣secrated Element of Bread: and therefore since both these Sayings were manifestly in∣tended of the same Subject; It is more than evident they were meant only of the Paschal Supper, and not at all of the Sacra∣ment.

14.* 1.18 As for Bellarmins quarrel with St. Tho∣mas his affirming that one Body cannot be locally in two places: and his revengeful inference, that neither then ca•• they be Sacramentally: All I will say hereto shall be, that if there be any quarrel on Bellarmins part, which truly I do not find to be such but may very friendly be composed. Yet however since it is on∣ly about a Scholastical Notion of Locality, Circumscription, &c. and it is apparent,

that both these Doctors held a true Sub∣stantial presence of our Lords Body in the Sa∣crament, as the Church teaches, I will not, by troubling my self about composing the matter between them, invite the Doctor here∣after to unnecessary excursions: It is only the Churches Doctrin that I engage my self to ju∣stifie.

15.* 1.19 In the last place, touching Berin a∣rius his submission, if the Form were the same mentioned in the Doctors Margin from Floriacensis, there is nothing appears in it favouring Consubstantiation. Certainly, it was sufficient, if he spoke sincerely, to acquit him from any suspition of holding onely a Figurative Presence of Christ's Bo∣dy: and that onely was his businesse. As for his Expressions that Our Lords Bo∣dy, not onely in Mystery, but Truth is handled, broken and chawed with the teeth of Faithful Communicants, unlesse they be understood Sacramentally, they are far from being justifiable. And so are all the Capharnaitical Objections that Prote∣stants make against Catholic Doctrine in this matter. VVe acknowledge more than a Spiritual, an Oral Manducatian, but without any Suffering or Change in the Divine Body it self: VVe acknowledge it is Nourishment to us, but not after a Carnal manner; Christ is not changed

by Digestion into our Bodyes; yet san∣ctifies even our Bodies also, as well as our Souls:* 1.20 Because in Saint Gregory Nyssen his Expression, Insinuating it self into our Bo∣dies, by an union with our Lord's Immortal Body, We are made Partakers of Immorta∣lity.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Serm. p. 9.
• * 1.2

  Ibid. p. 23, 24.
• * 1.3

  Profess. Fid. Pii 4.
• * 1.4

  Calvin in •• Cor. cap. 11. 24.
• * 1.5

  Casaub. ••p. ad. Card. Per.
• * 1.6

  1 Cor. 11. 29.
• * 1.7

  Blondel.
• * 1.8

  L••turg. S. Basil. Cyril. Hier. Catech. Myst. 5.
• * 1.9

  Chrys. in. 1 Cor. 10. hom. 24.
• * 1.10

  Opta••. lib. 6.
• * 1.11

  Cy••il. Al. Ep. ad Calosyr.
• * 1.12

  Amb••. de Spis. lib. 3. cap. 12.
• * 1.13

  Aug. in Psal. 98. 5.
• * 1.14

  Id. Epist. 120.
• * 1.15

  Luke 22. 14, 18.
• * 1.16

  lbid. 10. 19, 20.
• * 1.17

  Matth. 26. 29. 〈◊〉〈◊〉
• * 1.18

  Serm. pag. 14.
• * 1.19

  Serm. pag. 25.
• * 1.20

  Greg. Nyss. orat. Catech. c. 37.