An answer to A discourse against transubstantiation

Article II. Whether Similitudes exclude the sense of Transubstantiation.

IF it be well known, as you write, that in the Hebrew Language things are commonly said to be that which they do signifie; It is not less evident, that the four Similitudes you heap together, are not prejudicial to the Catholic Exposition of our Saviour's words. These Similitudes shall be delivered in single Paragraphs.

Paragraph I. Similitude of Pharao's Dream.

YOU object, Joseph, expounding Pharao's Dream to him, says, The seven good Kine are seven Years.

I answer: We consider some things as Signs, and others as Substances. The Sign is reasonably called the Thing, and yet it is not, what it represents; so the Portrait of a King, is said to be the King, that is, only represents his Majesty. But if we consider a thing as a Substance, we cannot in common Language affirm, it to be, what it is not. So Prudence will not give us leave to say, a Pen is Paper, because a Pen is not reckon'd a∣mong representative Signs. Josepth reasonably affirm'd the seven Kine are seven Years, and so Pharao understood him that they were seven in Representation, because they both knew the di∣scourse was of Signs, as the Scripture testifies, ver. 13. And Pha∣raoh said unto Joseph, in my Dream, behold I stood upon the bank of the River, and behold there came up out of the River seven Kine.

Our Saviour's Expression, this is my Body, is as far distant from this Example, as the real institution of the Sacrament, from the Narrative of a Dream; and therefore ought not to be understood as the like Expression. But what connexion be∣tween Pharao's Dream, and the change of Bread in the Sacra∣ment? As much as betwixt the same Dream and our Saviour's being Substantially Man. If I should then argue thus, as you do, Joseph called the seven Kine, seven Years (which Language is usual a∣mong the Hebrews) that is, signified seven Years, and so would a∣ny man of sense understand the like expression: Therefore when St. John says the Word was made Flesh, that is, was a Figure os a Man or Phantasm, is such a Deduction, that no Language but Hebrew can be able to make it out.

Paragraph II. Of one who never heard of Transubstantiation.

THIS Similitude is very pleasant, as if we should go to Pa∣gans, to know what is our own Religion. However you believe, that he that never heard of Transubstantiation, would never ima∣gine any such thing to be meant by our Saviour's words. And I believe a great Number of these who saw our Saviour himself, deny'd he was God. You believe the Bread only signifies Christ's Body, because you will bilieve so; I distinguish what Christ distin∣guished; and because he said, this is my Body, I believe it was his Body; and because he commanded us to do this hereafter, for a memorial of his Death and Passion, we obey him. Is not this to follow Scripture?

You are sure it would never have entred into any Man's mind, to have thought, that our Saviour did literally hold himself in his hands, and give away himself from himself with his own hand. And I am sure, what cannot enter into Man's thought, the Di∣vine 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 li∣teral sense fulfilled in David, in Christ we acknow∣ledge it, for Christ was carried in his hands, when recommending his own very Body, he said, this is my Body, for he car∣ried 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 gi∣ving 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 ele∣gantly expressed, they were multiplied by being diminished.

This Argument of our Blessed Saviour; if it did not con∣vince 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 an∣other 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 ob∣scure, This Passover is our Saviour; The same Ceremonie deli∣vered

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 Sep∣tuagint translate, It is the Passover to the Lord. Nor was this Ex∣pression 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.

Notes

• Gen. 41. 26.
• St. Aug. in Psal. 33. Conc. 1.
• Quomodo intelligitur in ipso Da∣vid secundùm literam non inveni∣mus, in Christo autem invenimus. Ferebatur enim Christus in mani∣bus, quando commendans ipsum Cor∣pus suum, ait, hoc est Corpus meum.
• John. 6.
• St. Hill. Fragmentis fragmenta succedunt, & fallunt semper per∣fracta frangentes.
• Raban. de Sang. Dom. c. 3. Minuendo multiplicaban∣tur.
• St. Justin. Dial. cum Trypho p. 297. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Malac. 3. Ego Dominus & non mutor.
• 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• Exod. 12. Sept. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉▪
• Corpus meum.